How To Safeguard Loose Nukes 167
Lasrick writes "The Bulletin has an interesting article about the likelihood of terrorists obtaining nuclear material. 'Since 1993, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has logged roughly 2,000 cases of illicit or unauthorized trafficking of nuclear and radioactive material. Thirty illicit radioactive trafficking incidents were reported in the former Soviet region alone from 2009 to 2011. As Obama said in December, "Make no mistake, if [terrorists] get [nuclear material], they will use it."'"
The real worry is 3D printing (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Well considering that most material that is made, this includes all of earth and every molecule in your body was at one time a bunch of hydrogen under very intense pressured being cooked together basically, and most materials cannot be just made without these conditions...i think we are safe from terrorist printing nukes in the foreseeable future.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
ITYM "explosive."
Re: (Score:2)
It's going to be a long time before anyone figures out how to make a desktop 3D printer that can transmute elements.
I think we're safe from that scenario.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Soon, with the whole periodic table available in one giant print cartridge, people will be able to 3D print nuclear weapons. If someone manages to download plans for the Tsar Bomba, we're cooked.
But the Feed is closely monitored for exactly this kind of thing. By the time your matter compiler is half way through you'd be splattered. Its when someone figures out how to make the Seed that we are all in deep shit.
Or maybe not...
http://orwell.ru/library/articles/ABomb/english/e_abomb [orwell.ru]
Re: (Score:2)
But the Feed is closely monitored for exactly this kind of thing. By the time your matter compiler is half way through you'd be splattered. Its when someone figures out how to make the Seed that we are all in deep shit.
There's always ways around the feed-sourced compilers; backwater compilers and such off the grid, for those who wish to print nuclear weapons, or pirate the latest hyper-interactive AI-enhanced children's story for their daughter.
Someone would print a nuclear weapon AND a motorcycle and sidecar...
Re: (Score:3)
And what would the cost of that cartridge be? Add in the cost of the packaging (lead shielding) and then the normal markup on printer cartridges, and the economy of the galaxy would collapse if somebody bought one. (see the history of Magrathea)
Re: (Score:2)
Obama also said he would close Gitmo (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Obama also said he would close Gitmo (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, what's the point of that Obama quote?
"Be afraid, be very afraid! That all you need to know" - seems like a good point to me (even if it's not necessary good for me or, for the matter, for the rest of about 7 billions with the exception of the people in power).
Re: (Score:1)
About the only part not gutted, is the GWB popularized phrase "make no mistake." Which makes sense given Obama's record -- why just embrace and extend GWB's policies when you can use his phrasification as well?
Re: (Score:2)
About the only part not gutted, is the GWB popularized phrase "make no mistake." Which makes sense given Obama's record -- why just embrace and extend GWB's policies when you can use his phrasification as well?
Hmmm... I don't know [ww2poster.co.uk], I was expecting a bit of a higher "class" from him [typepad.com].
Re:Obama also said he would close Gitmo (Score:4, Interesting)
Seriously, what's the point of that Obama quote?
To continue the fascade that a bunch of people who kick it out in the desert and shoot their guns in the air at weekend training camps are evil because they're muslims or whatever, as opposed to people who kick it up in the woods and shoot their guns in the air at weekend training camps here, but aren't? Just a thought.
I'm sure there are terrorists out there... but I'm also reasonably sure they are so few in number as to not be a serious threat. Even if a 9/11 happened every year, it wouldn't be serious, in terms of economic damage and loss of life. However, there are legions of people who have been labelled as such because it's the only way to justify spending trillions of dollars... I mean, what if there were only 300 terrorists in the whole world. What then? We spend a trillion dollars to "contain" them... when we really ought to just pay them 3 billion dollars each to move to a secluded island and live out their remaining days in luxury. Bonus: It would be cheaper than what we've been doing so far...
Re: (Score:3)
To be fair, Obama's approach has been much more effective than GWB so far. I would like to see our forces completely withdrawn from the region and replaced by small specialized forces to hunt down the actual terrorists (yes, even using drones) while NOT shooting up the countryside and generally convincing common people that the terrorists are right about us.
Sadly, nearly anything would be cheaper and more effective than our invasion has been.
Re: (Score:3)
To be fair, Obama's approach has been much more effective than GWB so far. I would like to see our forces completely withdrawn from the region and replaced by small specialized forces to hunt down the actual terrorists (yes, even using drones) while NOT shooting up the countryside and generally convincing common people that the terrorists are right about us.
Based on exactly what?
It was the troop surge that worked. Bush pretty much started with the small force go after high value targets strategy we are using now and it failed then. It turned out you had to establish basic control and security before you could move to a precise targeting strategy. To my knowledge none of our military strategists and commanders have gone on record suggesting these strategies would have been viable without doing the surge and many have cautioned against over dependance on spec
Re: (Score:3)
The most effective part of "the surge" was us hiring militias to work on our side.
On the contrary, the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were based on overwhelming military force, just not overwhelming numbers of troops. It's true that our military's original strategy stupidly assumed that the people would instantly rally to our side, start new democra
Re: (Score:2)
Obama actually found and killed Bin Laden (not personally, of course), the one person we are quite sure was involved in an attack on the U.S. Bush had us farting around in Afghani caves while Bin Laden giggled at us from a Turkish mansion.
You worry about the civilians who Obama's drones while ignoring the over 100,000 Bush killed in Iraq? WOW! I don't think we have enough drones to kill that many people even on purpose. As for taking advice from military experts, they said that invading Iraq would take ten
Re: (Score:3)
To continue the fascade that a bunch of people who kick it out in the desert and shoot their guns in the air at weekend training camps are evil because they're muslims or whatever[...]
Yes. They are (doing) evil (things) because of their religion. Like some christians. Religion is the problem here.
Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
-Steven Weinberg
Re: (Score:2)
But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
I'm an atheist, but I wouldn't say that was fair. What you do need is good people who believe in something, whether it's God, Communism or their Homeland.
As people tend to believe in something rather than nothing, because a life entirely without purpose or meaning just leads to amorality anyway, you'll always have good people doing evil things.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you even slow down to consider the full magnitude of a statement like that? A 9/11 happening each year would be a 20% increase in the homocide rate. Air travel would plummet. Air travel did stop for a few days immediately afterward. NYC suffered tremendous economic losses - the loss of a couple billion dollars of prime real estate, the disruption of business for weeks and months, the suspension
Re: (Score:2)
A 9/11 happening each year would be a 20% increase in the homocide rate. Air travel would plummet.
Comparing individual homicides with terrorist bombings is a completely false equivalency. As to air traffic: if if plummeted, so much the better as far as i'm concerned. People travel far more than necessary (Mr. Business Meeting Manager, I'm talking to you), and air travel is by far the least energy-efficient.
As to your other points: first of all, if anyone in the Cheney-Rumsfeld administration had the slightest bit of brains, they'd not only have suspended stock trading (which would not have affected
Re: (Score:2)
We spend a trillion dollars to "contain" them... when we really ought to just pay them 3 billion dollars each to move to a secluded island and live out their remaining days in luxury.
Well, that was astoundingly stupid of you. That will only create more terrorists, as they will have it proven for them that you can profit by being one. That's why we don't deal with terrorists. Dealing with pirates created more pirates, which is why sinking them is the preferred solution, rather than paying them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Obama also said he would close Gitmo (Score:5, Insightful)
Hint: they don't want luxury and they don't want peace, until their flags are flying over all corners of the civilized world and their ideas about Islam (not just any brand of Islam either) dominate.
Three billion dollars buys a lot of change in thinking. You can get a Congressman to sell his soul for a lot less.
They are America's sworn enemies. We can't wish or negotiate that away, we have to defend ourselves. And the best defense is a good offense. That's why Obama's administration deserves huge props for taking out Bin Laden. That's how it's done, Dubya. That's how it must always be done.
Yes! We must bomb them! shoot them! Drop nukes! At a cost of many trillions of dollars! Because they don't want money! They don't want to be rich! They're poor, living in mud huts in the desert, and don't wanna change! Not ever! Not one single one! So passionate is their belief, they would happily choose suicide over spending the rest of their days rolling in hundred dollar bills naked! YES! I BELIEVE YOU!
Also, your fly is down.
Re: (Score:2)
So passionate is their belief, they would happily choose suicide over spending the rest of their days rolling in hundred dollar bills naked!
It's the rolling naked in hundred dollar bills that has them scared really. The papercuts would be horrifying.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pacifist, and I'm telling you that's quite naive POV. Breaking it down:
"Yes! We must bomb them! shoot them! Drop nukes! At a cost of many trillions of dollars!"
Of course you shouldn't do that. Both wars were costly mistakes both in reasoning and strategy. Sans that having good and able military would repel fanatics or making think twice anyone to support them.
"Because they don't want money! They don't want to be rich!"
That's over generalization of Islamic and Middle East people. Most of them want to liv
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I can tell you now it's non-zero.
You are certain of an alternate present/future? Sounds like you are lying. It's never happened before, even when the US paid rebels, as they have done, so what makes you think it would happen in the future? Oh yeah, your lie supports your opinion, even if it violates reality.
Re: (Score:2)
The only problem is that the current methods for taking them out end up just creating more of them. For every terrorist killed a dozen new ones sign up to fight America, since they've just seen their family/friends become collateral damage.
Sure in the short term that's fine - the new guys are untrained cannon fodder. But it does mean that the war on terror will have to continue indefinitely - it can never actually defeat the terrorists, just divert their attention to 'easy' targets, such as US personnel in
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can make the same case that government should meddle with the lives of rich people and businesses, since they're so important to the whole world (the economy and all that)
Well, one of the reasons we have governments is to keep other governments at bay.
Re: (Score:3)
try looking at the facts... obama had NOTHING to do with taking bin laden out. in fact he would have stopped it from happening if he had more info and had a chance....
Yeah, it was George W Bush that killed Bin Laden. With his bare hands. But the goddamned liberal media spun it to be pro-minority, as always.
As Obama said in December, (Score:5, Insightful)
"Make no mistake, if [terrorists] get [nuclear material], they will use it."
This coming from the world's biggest terrorist, the Drone Ranger
Re: (Score:3)
"Make no mistake,
Translation [photobucket.com]
Re: (Score:2)
"Make no mistake, if [terrorists] get [nuclear material], they will use it."
The same goes for all governments that acquire nukes for the first time.
An initial demonstration is almost always necessary to make others believe your threat is real
Radioactive material != Nuclear weapons (Score:5, Insightful)
People need to stop conflating radioactive materials and nuclear weapons. The only 3 isotopes that matter for nuclear weapons are U-233, U-235, and Pu-239. These are the fissile nuclides. Get enough of these together and you can level a city. Contrast this with any dirty bomb material. If you get enough of that together and blow it up, you've simply provided contractors with 3 months of decontamination work with pressure washers. Not the same thing.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You're forgetting, panic = ratings
Re:Radioactive material != Nuclear weapons (Score:5, Interesting)
And dont forget, it better be a pretty damn small city, and you need a way to get the (not small...) bomb to correct altitude, AND it would have to work..
It would probably be much more effective, and one hell of a lot easier to mail what ever fissile material you have to the local media, claiming to have a bomb...
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
It would probably be much more effective, and one hell of a lot easier to mail what ever fissile material you have to the local media, claiming to have a bomb...
You're telling me it would be too hard for someone to take a big pile of conventional explosives, grind up the fissile material, and then load it into a rental truck and drive it downtown? Why do you think a bomb means "big mushroom cloud of doom"? It could just be a conventional explosive used against a soft target, but with the added collateral damage of having the entire area contaminated with radioactive debris. And once you're done, claim you'll do it again in 48 hours unless (insert terrorist demand h
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Als
Re:Radioactive material != Nuclear weapons (Score:4, Informative)
"The Federation of American Scientists...says a bomb made using just one piece of radioactive cobalt [of the sort used in food irradiation] could make [New York] city uninhabitable for decades, and seriously contaminate one thousand square kilometres of the states of New Jersey, Connecticut and New York." [independent.co.uk]
Rejecting reality (Score:1)
Assuming more cobalt-60 than has been produced, no decontamination, and the *OMFG NUCULAR* reactionaries...
Re:Radioactive material != Nuclear weapons (Score:5, Informative)
I read that and I find that rather stupid. I'll tell you why.
You see, I just spent part of this week getting a new Cobalt-60 source exactly like is described in the article installed in the facility where I work. 2500 Curies. You definitely don't want to be around it when it is exposed. If you were to steal it, grind it up, and evenly dust it over a thousand square kilometers, you'd have 2.5 Ci per sq kilometer, or 2.5 microCuries per square meter, or about 3700 dpm/m^2.
Just so that you know, the typical standard of cleanliness when cleaning up an area which has been exposed to a Co-60 spill is about 200 dpm per 100 cm^2, or about 20000 dpm/m^2. In other words, the dirty bomb scenario described in the paper would be barely within the limits of detection, and if someone performed a contamination test, the area would register as "clean".
Now, of course, in real life the dust would not be spread evenly, but then we aren't talking 1000 sq km as the article said, now are we? In real life, it would also be fairly easy to clean up as well, at least to a livable standard.
I get really tired of dealing with all the locks, alarm systems, etc. that are now required just to have one of these sources on site. I totally understand and approve safety precautions like interlocks, etc. But having to get a key to unlock the key box to get the other key that unlocks the bunker where the source is, when it takes 12 hours to install or remove the source, just so that phantom terrorists don't steal it is a daily pain in my ass.
Re: (Score:2)
You know, of all the things I might try to steal, a Co-60 source is not exactly the most attractive. May as well try to french kiss a black mamba.
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly, the terrorist threat is entirely imaginary.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, it's not like terrorists ever killed 3000 people and levelled a couple of skyscrapers by flying planes into them is it?
Still? sheesh and damn.
Haven't you noticed that death-by-plane-crash-into-building stopped being a feasible method after the first 3 such events? Plane #4 was stopped (albeit with loss of life) by onboard civilians. The next umpty-million commercial flights had locked doors and flight crew that knew better than ever to give up control. Stop thinking that some terrorist is magically going to do it again. Better yet, stop thinking that a series of ever more expensive and ever more intrusive Maginot L
Re:Radioactive material != Nuclear weapons (Score:5, Informative)
Neptunium-237 [fas.org] is weapon-usable as well.
Re: (Score:3)
Afterwards people will see how much of a non-issue it is, and no one will be afraid of dirty bombs anymore.
Yes, in exactly the same way that nobody is afraid of terrorists getting on airliners any more.
Let me rephrase because the sarcasm didn't really work. If there is a successful attack with fissile material, America will lose its mind so hard that the post-9/11 insanity that persists today will seem like a happy memory.
Re: (Score:2)
It's the USA's fault there are so many nukes (Score:2, Informative)
If we didn't keep building nukes, forcing other countries to keep building nukes to compete, then there wouldn't be so many nukes out there. Sure, we here in the USA might be able to keep our stuff out of other peoples hands, but we can't control Russia, China, UK, or France, and that's not talking about what Israel, India or Pakistan really have. Of course, North Korea is now maybe testing weapons.
Not to mention the USA policy of bullying other nations into doing what it wants? I think the problem i
Re:It's the USA's fault there are so many nukes (Score:5, Insightful)
If we didn't keep building nukes, forcing other countries to keep building nukes to compete....
We haven't built any new nuclear weapons in decades. In fact, we've been gradually decomissioning them, in step with Russia, as we reach new treaty agreements.
Re: (Score:2)
We haven't built any new nuclear weapons in decades. In fact, we've been gradually decomissioning them, in step with Russia, as we reach new treaty agreements.
How about "bunker-busting" tactical nukes, which the US claims, are exempt from current treaties?
Or how about armor-piercing depleted uranium ammo? Granted, that last one probably wouldn't qualify as a nuclear weapon, but at least, don't tell me that a tactical nuke is not a nuclear weapon.
Re: (Score:1)
"Bunker-busting" tactical nukes were never actually developed. They were theorized and funded when conventional bunker-busters (then recently made relevant with the advent of smart bomb accuracy) entered the spotlight, but was ultimately shelved due to lack of targets and impracticality. (Deeper/bigger targets required impractically large nuclear payloads, conventional bunker-busters got the job done well enough by simply target ventilation systems and it was obvious that the enemy would react by building l
Re: (Score:2)
Or how about armor-piercing depleted uranium ammo? Granted, that last one probably wouldn't qualify as a nuclear weapon
It wouldn't and you should know that. Nuclear weapons aren't stuff that just has uranium in it.
How about "bunker-busting" tactical nukes,
Ok, how about them? I see that the US has yet to dare use one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It's the USA's fault there are so many nukes (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What about the so-called "bunker-busting" tactical nukes? The US claims those types of nukes are exempt from existing treaties.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty sure those never actually got built.
I'm pretty sure they were. [google.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Are you kidding me? I know this is Slashdot, but it wouldn't hurt you to google once in a while. There is not any controversy that those tactical nukes do exist and are not being counted in the official statistics.
Check out my previous post for the citation.
Re: (Score:2)
If you didn't keep building nukes, you'd have three eyes and you'd be speaking Russian.
The French do it because they're arrogant and want to prove they're not just cheese eating surrender monkeys.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny thing, that, because the facts disagree with you.
USSR have pledged not to use nuclear weapons first, while the commanders of American Strategic Air Command have favoured preemptive nuclear strikes for quite a long time.
Besides, what is wrong with speaking Russian? Every foreign language broadens your horizon.
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying if USA had only one nuke in the Cold War, it would have ended differently?
Re: (Score:2)
Probably, and much more peaceful, I think. Soviet leaders were scared shitless of American nukes, that was the reason for the totally unneeded arm race which bankrupted the Soviet Union and lead to the Russia of the 1990ies and numerous bloody conflicts. This was also the reason why Khrushchev's peaceful coexistence doctrine ultimately failed and he was ousted, which was, in my opinion, unfortunate - USSR could have started something like perestroika a decade earlier.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The USSR built nearly twice as many warheads as the US.
Informative chart [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but the only thing that really matters at that point, is that it makes it that many more nukes that can potentially get lost. The US and the USSR towards the end of the '80s had so many nukes that they could have unilaterally dismantled most of them and still had enough in reserves to blast the other one into oblivion if they needed to.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, let's just sit around complacently and wait for the next 9/11.
You dumbass.
considering how much rights the people of the united states lost due to laws after 9/11, I don't think we could handle another one. They have no choice but to lock up everyone since taking away our rights wouldn't of worked.
9/11, we get attack by "terrorist" so we go invade a country that has nothing to do with it.
Like I said, the USA is a bully.
Re:It's the USA's fault there are so many nukes (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree with the idea that America can't survive another terrorist attack -- I don't mean of course, the political entity, I mean the ideals America is supposed to be built on -- things like privacy, the right to a fair trial before the government kills you or executes you, the right to travel ... you know, freedom.
In fact, if you really think about it, it seems we didn't survive 9/11.
And of course, 80% of the populace likes it this way.
What will be interesting is whether after the next terrorist attack -- there will be one because it is completely impossible to prevent every such possible instance of terrorism -- is whether we will just overtly shift into police state mode. The unitary executive theory will sure prove handy to whoever is president at that time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The foreign policy of the USA can NEVER, EVER be, "let's just mind our own business and try to help out where we can, and then for the most part other countries will leave us alone." That didn't work for the US in 1917 or 1941 or 2001. It completely ignores history.
You're right about that. Isolationism doesn't work.
Anybody who proposes pacifism is either not concerned with the best interests of the US, or is a dumbass.
That's a complete non-sequitur. It is a proven fact that the post 9/11 "war on terror" has increased terrorism and that's also not very surprising. If you occupy a country, be it Afghanistan or Iraq, there will be a huge number of fighters in this country who will strife to free themselves from occupation, and since the warfare is asymmetric they will become terrorists, since they could otherwise not achieve their goal. You know, Al Qaeda's main goal has al
Re: (Score:2)
We've had a 9/11 every year since the dawn of the Gregorian calendar, and so far only one of those has been bad...
Comment removed (Score:3)
Sane foreign policy... (Score:5, Insightful)
Consider the different attitude the US has when discussing negotiations with nuclear-armed states and states without nuclear weapons. Nuclear-armed states are treated with much more respect and resort to diplomacy rather than outright invasion.
Re: (Score:1)
Nuclear-armed states are treated with much more respect and resort to diplomacy rather than outright invasion.
Maybe that explains why the US is so chummy with Saudi Arabia
Re: (Score:2)
There are three countries that are not allies with the US that have nuclear weapons; Russia, China and North Korea. All of these countries have large armies to back up the nuclear threat.Even without nuclear weapons these countries would be a bloodbath to invade.
Re: (Score:2)
So the US has an insane foreign policy compared to Saddam's Iraq (invaded, fought, or threatened pretty much every country around them), North Korea (hurl missiles and threats against it neighbors), Iran (covert operations against governments of many countries in region, threaten others, including barely veiled genocide against former ally Israel)?
So could you explain why it is that you think the United States wants to invade sane [youtube.com], peace loving [youtube.com] North Korea - a genuine light to the world [sciencephoto.com] guided by the enligh [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Well, worded like that it actually not dissimilar to the foreign policy of the United States of America.
Invasion and covert operation against countries in the reg
Re:Sane foreign policy... (Score:4, Insightful)
In some cases, some cultures are completely alien to another.
It's worth noting that none of the cultures you mention count. There's two problems that people often don't get about nukes. One is the crazy person with nukes. For whatever reason, including the above mentioned "completely alien" culture, you could have someone far more willing to use nukes than you would expect.
Another is extremely short decision time frames. There are countries which because they are near one another, have only a few minutes to decide whether some blips on a screen (or the equivalent) are either innocuous (could be flaws in the detector hardware, rocket test, whatever) or the end of their civilization. The faster this decision needs to be made, the more likely it is that someone makes a bad choice, such as launching a retaliatory strike.
Proliferation increases the chances that either of the above potential problems becomes an actual problem that kills lots of people.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Obama catch phrases (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
It's a drinking game, what will President Erkel say next.
Re: (Score:2)
So like George "Read-my-lips" Bush?
According to Bayes ... (Score:1)
Because "Make no mistake, if [terrorists] get [nuclear material], they will use it."
P(terrorist | nuclear) = 1
P(terrorist, nuclear) = P(nuclear)
we are doomed
Loose nukes (Score:2)
How To Safeguard Loose Nukes
Tie them down good with rope, and remember, if you cant tie knots, tie lots.
Or maybe put them in boxes, they shouldnt roll away then.
the [] (Score:2)
did he really say "if get, they will use it" ?
Re: (Score:2)
If use it boom
North Korea (Score:3)
1/ They have the bomb.
2/ They are desperate for money, and have few qualms, and seemingly little good judgement about doing whatever it takes to get money to maintain their fucked up internal power structure. $2 billion per year exports at moment, but $3 billion imports and $20 billion external debt
3/ There are numerous groups in the world who do not like the west (some 'terrorists', some countries) who could probably raise a few hundred million to a billion dollars to buy a nuclear bomb.
4/ Short of hitting them with a pre-emptive nuclear strike North Korea cannot be invaded/stopped without massive risk/destruction to South Korea, Japan, and possibly USA (nuclear weapons + ICBM), also huge danger from China if it comes to a shooting war/invasion.
Pretty good chance that North Korea will sell a bomb to someone to use on a western city. Iran and pakistan are also moderately dangerous. I wouldn't feel particularly safe living in coastal USA cities, or Israel for that matter in the next 20 years.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a big difference between building a test nuke in an underground chamber and building a nuke that is light and yet durable enough to launch on an ICBM, especially the types of rockets that NK has available. Not to mention heat shields and guidance systems and the fact that NK has no way of doing any of the preparation in any way that is hidden from US spy satellites. The risk is non-zero, but at this point insignificant.
Focused on the wrong area (Score:2)
I'm not sure (Score:2)
Obama was saying that's a bad thing.
Read this and stop worrying (Score:2)
This book [amazon.com] is dry, boring and very wonkish. But after reading it you won't really worry much, if at all, about this subject any more.
Hey, it was used correctly! (Score:2)
Maybe the first time on /. this year, the word "loose" was properly used. This could make me loose my mind ... ooops, winning streak is over.