[Publius6961]

You didn't prove any of these claims on the other thread which I am cross-linking for the benefit of the people on this thread.

Please give us your qualifications to understand the proof if it were given to you.

Only then can we judge.

Your level of "proof" might be right up there with a failure to grasp the meaning of "is".

[calenel]

"Please give us your qualifications to understand the proof if it were given to you.

Only then can we judge.

Your level of 'proof' might be right up there with a failure to grasp the meaning of 'is'."

Did you read the other thread or are you just doing the enraged chimpanzee thing and throwing crap around because that's all you got? Before demanding other's qualifications, please post your own.

Scenario: Improvised Nuclear Device. What are the technological challenges and the minimum requirements for a small nuclear weapon to be smuggled and assembled inside the US.

I say you only need two hard-to-get components for a 'Fat Man' style plutonium weapon (high grade conventional explosives being considered not-too-difficult on this scale), the plutonium and the initiator (sticking to 'Fat Man' this would be a polonium/beryllium construct). No one on that other thread has provided an example of a technological hurdle that could not be overcome, either in the transport of those two components (plutonium and polonium) or in the construction of the rest of the device. My position is that the plutonium itself is the only real obstacle. That is, getting enough of it to be useful and getting it secretly so as to be able to smuggle it into the US without the US government's awareness. I am willing to listen to reasoned responses.