Quote:
Originally Posted by simplicitus
Then I'd ship a nuclear device on a boat, put it on a truck, and blow it up in the middle of NYC. The modern nuclear threat to America is not from states (except via error, which is increasingly likely) but from stateless terrorists. Terrorists don't have ICBMs.
You obviously haven't thought this through....
First, in a previous post, you state missile defense will not work and may start WW3. But if it will not work, why would China and Russia care? They would applaud our wasteful efforts. But they are not, because they are probably decades behind on the technology and defense infrastructure to deploy such a shield. So it either works and will lead to WW3, or it won't and the nuclear powers that be wouldn't give a flying ****. I'm betting that Russia and China have better intel than you, and they seem to be objecting to the shield.
You also overlook the advantages of missiles as a delivery system. If you send a missile, it gets there in thirty minutes or less, and cannot be tampered with or stopped easily. In addition, the person deploying the missile retains control over the weapon until a few seconds before detonation if not until detonation. If your method of delivery is relying on smuggling in boats or trucks, you give up possession and most likely control of your weapon for extended periods, weeks or months, leaving the weapon exposed to a significant chance of apprehension or misuse. This method of delivery invariable will be beholden criminals and bribed custom officials. Yes a terrorist staging a single attack would probably find these risks acceptable, but a state facing a nuclear response, obviously would not.
Which brings us to the point you seem to be driving, that only non-state actors, i.e. terrorists, will deploy nuclear weapons in the future. You overlook the fact that the nuclear powers, including the US, have no real intention of disarming, and many other nations desire to join the nuclear club. We are also sure that as of this time, only states have the wherewithal to create a nuclear bomb. So for a terrorist to get one, it would need help from a state. So the reality is that any nuclear attack by terrorists would be a state sponsored nuclear attack, which brings us back to the points made in the above paragraph.
Maybe terrorists could steal a bomb or buy one, but the costs of producing a bomb are so great, that the purchase of a bomb at a fair market value is beyond the means of any known terrorist organization. So they would have to either steal a bomb, or buy one from a corrupt official. As the former is unrealistic, we only have concerns about corrupt officials selling a bomb at less than fair market value. But even this assumption seems flawed because there are plenty of state actors desperate to purchase the same from such corrupt officials, and these states can easily outbid a terrorist organization. This brings us right back to the second paragraph.
Now I am not saying it's impossible for a terrorist to get one...but it's rather unlikely