5 ms·

> Nation states, sure, they've probably bought a few […] If a nation state has a nuke, it's in their interest to hold it as deterrent. It also is in their inte

> Nation states, sure, they've probably bought a few […] If a nation state has a nuke, it's in their interest to hold it as deterrent. It also is in their interest to let ‘them’ know they have an atomic bomb. Of course, they could have done that secretly, but I think the world at large would know of it, anyways. Since that hasn’t happened (Pakistan and North Korea built their own devices, and so, likely, did Israel, all after buying it stealing the technology), I think it’s unlikely this happened. > If they [terrorists] use it, they achieve the attention and blood they seek, while the world doesn't know where they all live Terrorists don’t want to instill fear, they want to instill fear in the pursuit of political aims. Because of that, they would have to tell the world they were responsible. I think the world would figure out where they live from that. I agree with you that it’s unlikely terrorist groups are in possession of nuclear devices. It’s not a weapon that’s easily hidden (its radiation probably gives it away), and it’s expensive to obtain, and they wouldn’t have many, so losing one without using it would be a big loss.

galangalalgol 4y ago
Is it thought that any of these lost wepons were an off the books way to provide non nuclear allies with a deterrent.
- Someone 4y ago
  I don’t think that’s the case. Secretly having a bomb gives you the ability to strike hard, but on its own it doesn’t deter. If you want to deter, it’s not sufficient to have teeth, you have to show them or at least convince your enemy to believe you have them, and that only seems to be happening by countries that built their own such as Russia, North Korea and Pakistan. So, how would, say, Canada secretly having a bomb deter anybody from attacking it? Also, the USA already provides non-nuclear allies with a way to deter by storing on-the-book weapons in their countries (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing) That doesn’t have to happen off the books. Are you suggesting there are countries they trust enough to store nuclear bombs there, while they don’t want the world at large to know about that? I can’t think of any country that would qualify for that.
  - galangalalgol 4y ago
    I was thinking about somewhere like Israel or Taiwan, that a sitting president might be willing to push the button to defend a nation, but not have confidence that their successor would do the same, and so put the matter in the hands of the nation itself.
samus 4y ago
Their size (you probably need a truck to move them) is more of a challenge. Nuclear weapons are well-shielded to not make handling them dangerous, therefore their radiation is barely noticeable. After all, that's the reason lost ones are so hard to locate. Put them in a metal crate or a container, and they should fade into the natural background radiation.
- Ferrotin 4y ago
  I don’t know about any shielding. They’re just plutonium and uranium, which aren’t very radioactive. They wouldn’t needlessly add weight to the weapon.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

galangalalgol 4y ago

Is it thought that any of these lost wepons were an off the books way to provide non nuclear allies with a deterrent.

Someone 4y ago
I don’t think that’s the case. Secretly having a bomb gives you the ability to strike hard, but on its own it doesn’t deter. If you want to deter, it’s not sufficient to have teeth, you have to show them or at least convince your enemy to believe you have them, and that only seems to be happening by countries that built their own such as Russia, North Korea and Pakistan. So, how would, say, Canada secretly having a bomb deter anybody from attacking it? Also, the USA already provides non-nuclear allies with a way to deter by storing on-the-book weapons in their countries (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing) That doesn’t have to happen off the books. Are you suggesting there are countries they trust enough to store nuclear bombs there, while they don’t want the world at large to know about that? I can’t think of any country that would qualify for that.
- galangalalgol 4y ago
  I was thinking about somewhere like Israel or Taiwan, that a sitting president might be willing to push the button to defend a nation, but not have confidence that their successor would do the same, and so put the matter in the hands of the nation itself.

samus 4y ago

Their size (you probably need a truck to move them) is more of a challenge. Nuclear weapons are well-shielded to not make handling them dangerous, therefore their radiation is barely noticeable. After all, that's the reason lost ones are so hard to locate. Put them in a metal crate or a container, and they should fade into the natural background radiation.

Ferrotin 4y ago
I don’t know about any shielding. They’re just plutonium and uranium, which aren’t very radioactive. They wouldn’t needlessly add weight to the weapon.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]