Global WMD policies

[Zathras]

In today's world, the only nations "allowed" to have weapons of mass destruction are the ones who already have them, and are powerfull enough to dictate who else can and can't. But is this a good idea?

I admit, having every wingnut dictator running around with nukes and the like isn't a comforting thought, but is it preferable to have them attempting to aquire them on the black market and possibly using them in sneak attacks out of fear?

Supposing that any nation that really wants to have one will eventually get one, isn't it better to have the government officially develop them, and have the fact known?

At least this way, these nations will be known to have the weapons, and will have fewer reasons to use them in sneak attacks. Everyone else knows that Nation X has one, so attacking Nation X is a bad idea. If Nation X uses one, they will be easily linked to the attack, so using them is a bad idea. They don't need to hide them, reducing the risk of a weapon "disappearing".

It's not a perfect solution by any stretch of the imagination, but is it better than the current situation?

[Pu-239]

Err, I don't think it would be hard to trace the attacks anyways.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Err, I don't think it would be hard to trace the attacks anyways.

Very easy for nukes, actually. That could be a problem, though - If the material for a nuclear bomb that a terrorist set off was obtained illicitly, it could cause a nation to launch a full retaliatory response on a reflex against the nation the material had come from.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

For example: If terrorists got nuclear material from Russia, made it into a nuke, and set it off in the USA.. Or got an actual Russian nuke, and set it off in the USA.. We would know that a...

...Russian nuke had gone off in the USA.

Think about that for a moment.

[Axis Kast]

Also try to keep in mind that a few nations are probably working on the bomb independantly.

Do you really think Germany, South Korea, and Japan haven't put at least the infrastructure in place to get one in short-hand?

I seriously doubt whether South Africa, Argentina, or Brazil have fully divested themselves of the same technology and know-how either.

[Montcalm]

For example: If terrorists got nuclear material from Russia, made it into a nuke, and set it off in the USA.. Or got an actual Russian nuke, and set it off in the USA.. We would know that a...

...Russian nuke had gone off in the USA.

Think about that for a moment.

But if the material has been acquired in the US,does it mean the US will have to bomb itself

[Alyeska]

For example: If terrorists got nuclear material from Russia, made it into a nuke, and set it off in the USA.. Or got an actual Russian nuke, and set it off in the USA.. We would know that a...

...Russian nuke had gone off in the USA.

Think about that for a moment.

But if the material has been acquired in the US,does it mean the US will have to bomb itself

Actually we might yell at Israel. They stole some nuclear material from the US back in the late 60s and their nukes are more likely to be stolen then our own.

[Colonel Olrik]

Also try to keep in mind that a few nations are probably working on the bomb independantly.

Do you really think Germany, South Korea, and Japan haven't put at least the infrastructure in place to get one in short-hand?

I seriously doubt whether South Africa, Argentina, or Brazil have fully divested themselves of the same technology and know-how either.

It's easy enough for a 1st world nation to build a couple of bombs. Portugal could do it in about 4-5 years. Having the knowhow, infrastructures and functioning nuclear reactors, it's no big deal. The hardest part, as long as engineering is concerned, is to design the launching mechanism. It implies a small enough bomb and a powerful, trustworthy enough rocket.

[Nathan F]

For example: If terrorists got nuclear material from Russia, made it into a nuke, and set it off in the USA.. Or got an actual Russian nuke, and set it off in the USA.. We would know that a...

...Russian nuke had gone off in the USA.

Think about that for a moment.

I am assuming you just watched 'The Sum of all Fears'.

[Sea Skimmer]

Also try to keep in mind that a few nations are probably working on the bomb independantly.

Do you really think Germany, South Korea, and Japan haven't put at least the infrastructure in place to get one in short-hand?

I seriously doubt whether South Africa, Argentina, or Brazil have fully divested themselves of the same technology and know-how either.

There's not a question about the first group, all three could have nuclear bombs within 90-180 days. South Africa could reconstitute its capability, though the needed personal may have left the country, but sparing the money would be a problem.

Brazil and Argentina both had nuclear weapons programs, Argentina's shut down after a while and little progress, while Brazil has turned to developed nuclear submarines for the last decade

[Axis Kast]

At this point, nuclear dissemination is most likely from one of four sources:

1. The post-Soviet bloc, primarily as a result of high corruption, extreme ideological flare-ups, and worst of all, poor on-site supervision.

2. South Africa, where the infrastructure and intelligence necessary to produce a simple bomb are doubtless still on hand – if not to the state (which is unlikely), then to the highest bidder.

3. The Middle East, where Pakistan – if Musharrif should be somehow obliged to step down – might represent a source of fissile material for up-and-coming fundamentalists.

4. North Korea, a known party in the trade of illicit weaponry.

The greatest danger is that a wealthy organization – say, al-Qaeda – would acquire the materials, equipment, and personnel necessary to produce a small bomb capable of being moved by roll-on/roll-off, ocean-going supercarrier, or eighteen-wheeler. It’s far easier and less dangerous from their point of view than somehow managing to hijack Russian equipment (which is the next-best option). Our only consolation is that, in terms of range, a “dirty bomb” of the type likely to be deployed by terrorists could offer an immediate yield of only two or three city blocks. Not to say that we want that to happen at all either.

[Sea Skimmer]

I am assuming you just watched 'The Sum of all Fears'.

I'd be surprised if she ever saw it actually, the ability to identify the origin of nuclear material is not only known to Clancy.

Actually we might yell at Israel. They stole some nuclear material from the US back in the late 60s and their nukes are more likely to be stolen then our own.

Its suspected they stole some material, was 300 pounds of U-235 that went missing IIRC. However after thirty years they may not even be using it. Israel's Dimona reactor started up in 1964 and it alone could supply material for two bombs per year. Though they've added several reactors since then.

[Pu-239]

3. The Middle East, where Pakistan – if Musharrif should be somehow obliged to step down – might represent a source of fissile material for up-and-coming fundamentalists.

Pakistan is in South Asia.

[kojikun]

Pakistan is in South Asia.

So is Israel. Well, south west asia.

[Captain Jack]

At this point, nuclear dissemination is most likely from one of four sources:

2. South Africa, where the infrastructure and intelligence necessary to produce a simple bomb are doubtless still on hand – if not to the state (which is unlikely), then to the highest bidder.

I believe the facilities were dismantled. However with enough money it could be rebuilt.

[Axis Kast]

It's not the facilities I worry about. As you said, money can cover that.

It's really the information, technology, resources, and human intelligence we need to keep track of.

[Sea Skimmer]

Pakistan is in South Asia.

So is Israel. Well, south west asia.

Its also in an area know as the Middle East. Pakistan is not, which was the point of the post.