2 ms·

There are a number of countries that are not officially listed as having nuclear weapons, but probably do, because of how easy they are to build in the 21st cen

by jerf 3y ago

There are a number of countries that are not officially listed as having nuclear weapons, but probably do, because of how easy they are to build in the 21st century. Japan is one common example of a state that is officially not a nuclear state, but people generally consider them de facto one anyhow: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_nuclear_weapons_program#De_facto_nuclear_state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_nuclear_weapons_progr... I mean, ultimately, we're talking about a device that was built nearly 90 years ago. They've only gotten easier to build since then. Absent international regulation and oversight, a motivated startup and modestly-well-funded startup could put them together today, no problem. Not the deluxe MIRV ICBMs nation states have, but something on par with the ones used in WWII? No problem.

NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
Having a bomb and delivering a working bomb to a target are vastly different things. If a country has a bomb, then they have a bomb sitting around somewhere. It is common knowledge that the nuclear superpowers have a lot of trouble, especially these days, around maintenance and infrastructure. You've got to develop and build good missiles or aircraft to send those bombs out somewhere, and you've got to maintain the whole chain in working order for as long as it takes. They've probably got to stay on high alert 24/7, because you never know when you'll need to press the button and send the bomb to the target. Just building a nuclear bomb without its concomitant delivery system means you'll have to get creative to deliver it. Good luck putting it on on a truck and driving it to the target or something. At that point, you'd rather just have a dirty bomb instead: a lot easier to make, and just deliver it to a convenient highly-populated spot where it'll make a big stink.
- ianburrell 3y ago
  South Korea is taking an interesting approach. They have been building the delivery systems, cruise missiles, IRBMs, and SSBNs, that are useful conventionally but could be adapted for nuclear warheads.

by jerf 3y ago

NoZebra120vClip 3y ago

Having a bomb and delivering a working bomb to a target are vastly different things. If a country has a bomb, then they have a bomb sitting around somewhere. It is common knowledge that the nuclear superpowers have a lot of trouble, especially these days, around maintenance and infrastructure. You've got to develop and build good missiles or aircraft to send those bombs out somewhere, and you've got to maintain the whole chain in working order for as long as it takes. They've probably got to stay on high alert 24/7, because you never know when you'll need to press the button and send the bomb to the target. Just building a nuclear bomb without its concomitant delivery system means you'll have to get creative to deliver it. Good luck putting it on on a truck and driving it to the target or something. At that point, you'd rather just have a dirty bomb instead: a lot easier to make, and just deliver it to a convenient highly-populated spot where it'll make a big stink.

ianburrell 3y ago
South Korea is taking an interesting approach. They have been building the delivery systems, cruise missiles, IRBMs, and SSBNs, that are useful conventionally but could be adapted for nuclear warheads.