Jump to content

# Delivery of Nuclear Weapons

## Recommended Posts

Don't you think in this modern age if some country decides to attack another nation with nuclear weapons they would NOT use ICBMs?  With so many satellites in space watching every country, would it not be easy to determine the source of a nuclear missile launch?  The source would be promptly punished.  For that reason, to maintain anonymity, I would suspect that IF it ever happens, the nuclear weapon would be discreetly delivered to it's destination by a boat, small plane, truck, or even inside a car.  Then nobody can tell where it came from.

Edited by Airbrush

• Replies 53
• Created
• Last Reply

#### Popular Days

Too many variables to respond in a meaningful way.

Is it a terrorist attack or an act of war? Does the attacker have ICBMs? Do they want to remain unknown? Do they need to deliver a large number of weapons? Are they targeting cities or military bases?

Regardless, it is unlikely the source of a nuclear attack will remain unknown.

##### Share on other sites

Submarines are options too, though not every country has the capability.

##### Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Endy0816 said:

Submarines are options too, though not every country has the capability.

Given the emerging technology, how much longer will they be invisible?

##### Share on other sites

6 hours ago, zapatos said:

Is it a terrorist attack or an act of war? Does the attacker have ICBMs? Do they want to remain unknown? Do they need to deliver a large number of weapons? Are they targeting cities or military bases?

Regardless, it is unlikely the source of a nuclear attack will remain unknown.

A terrorist attack.  It seems like suicide for any nuclear power (especially N.Korea)  to launch ICBMs at any country.  The whole world will know WHO started the fight.  Then all arsenals of the world will be turned against the attacker 100 times as much.

The most likely event in my opinion would be a terrorist organization gets one or more nuclear bombs.  They issue a threat against any nation then back up the threat by destroying a large city.  Then they issue a second threat saying "How did you like that?  Now here is where you send the money,"(... or whatever their demand...) "...or we destroy another city."  It will be hard to track down the offender.

##### Share on other sites

On 5/10/2018 at 12:12 PM, StringJunky said:

Given the emerging technology, how much longer will they be invisible?

I think if they dove deeper and didn't leave as much of a trail(CO2, H2).

They don't presently go all that deep relatively speaking. They might as well be on the surface for some of the newer technologies.

Likewise not many whales breathing out hydrogen. We could maybe react it with something turning it into a solid/liquid instead or reduce the amount of O2 sent overboard as part of CO2(CO + O).

Edited by Endy0816
##### Share on other sites

On 10.05.2018 at 5:56 PM, Endy0816 said:

Submarines are options too, though not every country has the capability.

Even narcotics smugglers are building one-time-used submarines these days...

You could make such in a few days in garage..

Unless you meant "capability" = "access to sea".. But it's meaningless barrier..

##### Share on other sites

It seems that 9/11 has  made people forget that many, perhaps most, terrorists are "home grown" and don't need to ship internationally.

##### Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Sensei said:

Even narcotics smugglers are building one-time-used submarines these days...

You could make such in a few days in garage..

Unless you meant "capability" = "access to sea".. But it's meaningless barrier..

Thinking in terms of launching vs smuggling.

A nuclear missile is launched at a city in Ukraine from beneath the South China Sea. Nobody claims responsibility. Who did it?

##### Share on other sites

Just now, Endy0816 said:

A nuclear missile is launched at a city in Ukraine from beneath the South China Sea. Nobody claims responsibility. Who did it?

Whoever has the most, politically, to gain.

After all, they did launch, the phuqr (posh spelling), it.

##### Share on other sites

On 10/5/2018 at 10:54 PM, Airbrush said:

A terrorist attack.  It seems like suicide for any nuclear power (especially N.Korea)  to launch ICBMs at any country.  The whole world will know WHO started the fight.  Then all arsenals of the world will be turned against the attacker 100 times as much.

The most likely event in my opinion would be a terrorist organization gets one or more nuclear bombs.  They issue a threat against any nation then back up the threat by destroying a large city.  Then they issue a second threat saying "How did you like that?  Now here is where you send the money,"(... or whatever their demand...) "...or we destroy another city."  It will be hard to track down the offender.

Sounds more like a criminal organisation than a terrorist organisation.

Also, since Hydra doesn't actually exist, I wouldn't worry too much. It's not like atomic bombs can be bought on ali-express, or that terrorist are well known for their exquisite organisational skills.

##### Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Bender said:

Sounds more like a criminal organisation than a terrorist organisation.

Also, since Hydra doesn't actually exist, I wouldn't worry too much. It's not like atomic bombs can be bought on ali-express, or that terrorist are well known for their exquisite organisational skills.

Even if they did get hold of one, they wouldn't be able to set off the thermonuclear part. They contain non-critical masses, so the worst that would happen is they'd spread a bit of radiation around with the little bit of conventional explosive that's in one.

##### Share on other sites

On 5/10/2018 at 9:09 AM, Airbrush said:

Don't you think in this modern age if some country decides to attack another nation with nuclear weapons they would NOT use ICBMs?  With so many satellites in space watching every country, would it not be easy to determine the source of a nuclear missile launch?  The source would be promptly punished.  For that reason, to maintain anonymity, I would suspect that IF it ever happens, the nuclear weapon would be discreetly delivered to it's destination by a boat, small plane, truck, or even inside a car.  Then nobody can tell where it came from.

Well... yeah, of course.

The scenario you described, in which a possible terrorist nuclear attack is carried out on a smaller scale and far less identifiable method....like a suitcase sitting on an NYC subway platform....is what keeps all of our NSA and CIA and Homeland security counter-terrorism guys up at night. And I think most CT guys agree that an ISIS sort of faction would almost certainly have to employ a tactic like that.

I've always feared your above mentioned scenario.....small boat, plane...suitcase at an NFL game...way way way (!) More than I have a Putin or a Jong Un unleashing an ICBM. And for the reasons you mentioned. Even someone as batshit crazy as Kim Jong knows that he is not long for this world if he attacks us. He'd be dead with hours.

I'm also continually amazed..... flabbergasted, really...that we the US have not been attacked in that manner.....truck nuke bomb, boat, luggage....since 9/11! I recall the following months after 911... I'd be watching the NFL on TV just thinking what a perfect and likely place for some Al quaeda dipshit to place a mini nuke device! I remember thinking how horrific it'd be to see that happen on live TV.

And yet,..........here we are some 17 years later. And nothing.

Why?

An homage to our splendid CT industry? Our vigilant government?

Or maybe more fodder for the 911 Insider theorists?

##### Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Velocity_Boy said:

Well... yeah, of course.

The scenario you described, in which a possible terrorist nuclear attack is carried out on a smaller scale and far less identifiable method....like a suitcase sitting on an NYC subway platform....is what keeps all of our NSA and CIA and Homeland security counter-terrorism guys up at night. And I think most CT guys agree that an ISIS sort of faction would almost certainly have to employ a tactic like that.

I've always feared your above mentioned scenario.....small boat, plane...suitcase at an NFL game...way way way (!) More than I have a Putin or a Jong Un unleashing an ICBM. And for the reasons you mentioned. Even someone as batshit crazy as Kim Jong knows that he is not long for this world if he attacks us. He'd be dead with hours.

I'm also continually amazed..... flabbergasted, really...that we the US have not been attacked in that manner.....truck nuke bomb, boat, luggage....since 9/11! I recall the following months after 911... I'd be watching the NFL on TV just thinking what a perfect and likely place for some Al quaeda dipshit to place a mini nuke device! I remember thinking how horrific it'd be to see that happen on live TV.

And yet,..........here we are some 17 years later. And nothing.

Why?

An homage to our splendid CT industry? Our vigilant government?

Or maybe more fodder for the 911 Insider theorists?

It's many times harder to make a mini-nuclear bomb with a non-critical mass  than it is to make one with a citical mass and the latter requires about 50Kgs of fissible material, which is going to cost you over $50m just for that. Only a state actor can make a nuclear bomb. ##### Link to comment ##### Share on other sites 31 minutes ago, Velocity_Boy said: Why? Because Hydra only exists in movies and comic books. 3 minutes ago, StringJunky said: which is going to cost you over$50m

Excluding the billions you need for the required infrastructure.

##### Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Bender said:

Because Hydra only exists in movies and comic books.

Excluding the billions you need for the required infrastructure.

Yep. I've gone into it in some depth and, overall, an amateur atomic device is pretty much a fantasy. The most dangerous security-wise would probably be N. Korea because you don't know what safety and security protocols they've got, given they are pretty new to it. In the 50's and 60's, in the UK, all you needed was the physical key to arm one... it was very trust-based.

Edited by StringJunky
##### Share on other sites

Which bits of this would be beyond the ability of a well funded terrorist or criminal gang?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-type_fission_weapon

I can see how it's hard to get hold of the uranium (that's why enriched uranium is usually carefully guarded), but the rest seems simple.

##### Share on other sites

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

It's many times harder to make a mini-nuclear bomb with a non-critical mass  than it is to make one with a citical mass and the latter requires about 50Kgs of fissible material, which is going to cost you over $50m just for that. Only a state actor can make a nuclear bomb. Bin laden had that type of money, however. I'm sure ISIS does as well. And as for my football game or Subway scenarios....a nuclear device is not required. A hundred lbs of Semtex or the like would wreak havoc. ##### Link to comment ##### Share on other sites 36 minutes ago, John Cuthber said: Which bits of this would be beyond the ability of a well funded terrorist or criminal gang? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-type_fission_weapon I can see how it's hard to get hold of the uranium (that's why enriched uranium is usually carefully guarded), but the rest seems simple. For a bomb, you need about 50 kg of Uranium 235 with a purity above 80%. Nuclear power plants need uranium with about 3-5% u235, which is completely useless for a bomb. So to get the uranium required, you need to make it yourself or Rob a military facility. ##### Link to comment ##### Share on other sites 1 hour ago, Bender said: Because Hydra only exists in movies and comic books. Excluding the billions you need for the required infrastructure. Who said anything about Hydra? Don't be naive. A state or terrorist faction sponsored actor will one day pull off the event we're speaking of. Mark it. The fact it hadn't occurred yet is both lucky and fortunate for us. And as I told Junky...a nuke device is not required. Also don't put words in my mouth or straw man me, bro. I never hypothesised anything vthat is the sole province of a fictional super villain clan. Grow up. 1 hour ago, Bender said: Because Hydra only exists in movies and comic books. Excluding the billions you need for the required infrastructure. Infrastructure? What are you talking about? Edited by Velocity_Boy ##### Link to comment ##### Share on other sites 53 minutes ago, John Cuthber said: Which bits of this would be beyond the ability of a well funded terrorist or criminal gang? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-type_fission_weapon I can see how it's hard to get hold of the uranium (that's why enriched uranium is usually carefully guarded), but the rest seems simple. Yes, with the gun-type, there's just the not small problem of getting that much material but handling that much material is not trivial, as I''m sure you are aware. ##### Link to comment ##### Share on other sites 8 hours ago, John Cuthber said: It seems that 9/11 has made people forget that many, perhaps most, terrorists are "home grown" and don't need to ship internationally. Who's forgetting? We all know about the possible Timothy McVeighs of the world. But last I checked, Al Quaeda and ISIL and Taliban, Hezbollah, et al were not homegrown. You also might wanna read this, Hydra man. 11 minutes ago, Velocity_Boy said: Who said anything about Hydra? Don't be naive. A state or terrorist faction sponsored actor will one day pull off the event we're speaking of. Mark it. The fact it hadn't occurred yet is both lucky and fortunate for us. And as I told Junky...a nuke device is not required. Also don't put words in my mouth or straw man me, bro. I never hypothesised anything vthat is the sole province of a fictional super villain clan. Grow up. Infrastructure? What are you talking about? I'll see that link and raise you! ##### Link to comment ##### Share on other sites 1 hour ago, Velocity_Boy said: Who said anything about Hydra? Don't be naive. A state or terrorist faction sponsored actor will one day pull off the event we're speaking of. Mark it. The fact it hadn't occurred yet is both lucky and fortunate for us. And as I told Junky...a nuke device is not required. Also don't put words in my mouth or straw man me, bro. I never hypothesised anything vthat is the sole province of a fictional super villain clan. Grow up. I did. Real terrorist organisations are usually poorly organised and uncoordinated, and have never even remotely shown the capability of stealing nuclear weapons. Getting some people trained as pilot isn't particularly difficult, and even capturing a civilian plane with no guards at all on board is quite a bit easier than invading a military facility. And of course a nuke is required : That's the topic of this thread. Also: please drop the attitude and agressive language. 1 hour ago, Velocity_Boy said: Infrastructure? What are you talking about? Enriching uranium to 80+% is not easy. I can't access your link. ##### Link to comment ##### Share on other sites 20 hours ago, StringJunky said: It's many times harder to make a mini-nuclear bomb with a non-critical mass than it is to make one with a citical mass and the latter requires about 50Kgs of fissible material, which is going to cost you over$50m just for that. Only a state actor can make a nuclear bomb.

I'm going to have to disagree, give me the materials and access to a metal shop and I bet I could make a small nuke, wouldn't be very efficient and as long as I didn't mind dying for my creation it is doable.

19 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Yep. I've gone into it in some depth and, overall, an amateur atomic device is pretty much a fantasy. The most dangerous security-wise would probably be N. Korea because you don't know what safety and security protocols they've got, given they are pretty new to it. In the 50's and 60's, in the UK, all you needed was the physical key to arm one... it was very trust-based.

Rogue nations like NK could sell plutonium or enriched uranium to any players in the nuke game. Do you have a link to your critique of the "amateur atomic device"?

Smuggling a nuke in a container on a cargo vessel seems to be the easiest way to get a nuke in place to do major damage.

##### Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

I'm going to have to disagree, give me the materials and access to a metal shop and I bet I could make a small nuke, wouldn't be very efficient and as long as I didn't mind dying for my creation it is doable.

Rogue nations like NK could sell plutonium or enriched uranium to any players in the nuke game. Do you have a link to your critique of the "amateur atomic device"?

You mean you would mix up some radioactive material with some conventional explosive so that it throws radiation everywhere? I did mention NK as being a weak spot.  My position is an amalgamation of many articles from government websites over a few years. Not looked into it for a good while, so no references off the top of my head. I basically searched how to make fission and thermonuclear weapons and their security protocols from the top down.

Edited by StringJunky

## Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

## Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

## Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

• #### Activity

• Leaderboard
×
• Create New...

## Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.