I'm of the opinion you're wrong on both counts: 1) "Delivery systems" no longer implies ballistic missiles as it used to in the 20th century. Al Qaeda proved that a "delivery system" can be improvised from an ordinary jet liner - or even a private plane. Smuggling is an ancient art and nuclear devices are no longer necessarily the size of "Fat Boy," requiring an "Enola Gay" to deliver them. 2) And, of course, our southern border is wide-open; any number of nuclear weapons could be "delivered" via cargo van or semi-trailer. 3) Vigilance on the part of the international community didn't work to give us a clear picture of Saddam Hussein's nuclear/chemical weapons program, apparently, nor did it managed to contain the North Korean's nuclear ambitions, despite their relative poverty compared to Iran. I seriously doubt that the "international community's vigilance" is going to prevent Iran from getting a nuke or deploying it, if they're willing to accept the retaliatory consequences - which it appears they are willing to accept in furtherance of their stated goals.Delivery systems is what thwarts most nuclear powers, even today. Iran is a,long way from the bomb, and even further away from being able to drop it where they want. I'm of the opinion that the possession of the bomb makes everybody safer, as long as the international community stays vigilant.
You forgot to determine if he is part of an oppressed class.
no, they have priveledgeWhite Christian straight males?
I'm of the opinion you're wrong on both counts: 1) "Delivery systems" no longer implies ballistic missiles as it used to in the 20th century. Al Qaeda proved that a "delivery system" can be improvised from an ordinary jet liner - or even a private plane. Smuggling is an ancient art and nuclear devices are no longer necessarily the size of "Fat Boy," requiring an "Enola Gay" to deliver them. 2) And, of course, our southern border is wide-open; any number of nuclear weapons could be "delivered" via cargo van or semi-trailer. 3) Vigilance on the part of the international community didn't work to give us a clear picture of Saddam Hussein's nuclear/chemical weapons program, apparently, nor did it managed to contain the North Korean's nuclear ambitions, despite their relative poverty compared to Iran. I seriously doubt that the "international community's vigilance" is going to prevent Iran from getting a nuke or deploying it, if they're willing to accept the retaliatory consequences - which it appears they are willing to accept in furtherance of their stated goals.
Ill stop short of saying it's impossible, but it is an extremely remote possibility that somebody is going sneak enough radioactive material on a plane, and use that as the delivery system. They DO check for that.
Nevertheless, Iran, again, has not proven itself to be irrational in its dealing on the world stage. They certainly aren't nearly in same realm as the nutcases in North Korea, who I will remind, actually does have the bomb, and an extreme hatred for Japan.
the Saudi's have nukes! They are stored in Pakistan.Report: Iran navy sends destroyer, another vessel to waters near Yemen amid Saudi-led strikes.
Let's get this inevitable Iran-Saudi war party started before the nukes are built.
A crude "gun barrel" nuke device with all the timing circuits and controllers would easily be under 8,000 pounds based on what was done in WWII, I can think of a lot of ways to ship that in many different types of planes. To be honest they could get the physics package down to 4,000 pounds based current technology and easily get an 8 to 20 KT yield. The Norks got a 4 to 8 KT yield with crap worse than what Iran is playing with.
A crude "gun barrel" nuke device with all the timing circuits and controllers would easily be under 8,000 pounds based on what was done in WWII, I can think of a lot of ways to ship that in many different types of planes. To be honest they could get the physics package down to 4,000 pounds based current technology and easily get an 8 to 20 KT yield. The Norks got a 4 to 8 KT yield with crap worse than what Iran is playing with.
So if it's that easy (and I'm not disagreeing, btw), why hasn't someone used one of these devices?
It is harder to make than chlorine gas.
AWKward. Lol'ing at chlorine gas v. nukes.
Just to clarify (I'm pretty sure you understand the point, but for others who may be confused), it comes down to path of least resistance. If a tango (or fiscally conscious nation-state) is doing a feasibility analysis on the most effective weapon to use to create a mass casualty event, there are MUCH easier ways to accomplish it than nukes.
But apparently, to "wipe (someone) off the map," you have those who are willing to wait until they have a nuclear weapon, lol. I guess it's the international version of "keeping up with the Jones's."
So if it's that easy (and I'm not disagreeing, btw), why hasn't someone used one of these devices?