3 ms·
Sure, but posessing some of the materials needed for producing such a weapon is indeed illegal due to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. Here is an article about so
by filoleg 4y ago
Sure, but posessing some of the materials needed for producing such a weapon is indeed illegal due to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. Here is an article about some tangentially related recent events that mentions it (and explains as well)[0].
Owning a personal nuclear weapon might not be technically illegal. However, producing it and transferring it is illegal. Which, seems to be almost functionally equivalent to being illegal to possess.
This is just purely my thoughts on how that hypothetical could play out, but I would be lying if I said I wasn't stupid curious about it myself.
0. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1978/03/19/weapons-grade-uranium-offer-probed-by-fbi/44d65d33-5390-433d-b5b9-b44843a9a80e/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1978/03/19/w...
- shantbefringed 4y ago
- OkayPhysicist 4y agoYou can't point at a law to contradict a constitutional right, so presumably a "right to bear ICBMs" argument would hinge on the law being an unconstitutional restriction of their 2nd Amendment rights. It would be mildly amusing if the ultimate decision worked out to "you can own nuclear material, but ONLY for the purpose of weaponizing it. No energy allowed!"
- spoonjim 4y agoThat's a weird logic. So it would be constitutional to outlaw gunpowder?