You're over-simplifying the ease of construction of this technology. It's simply NOT something that everyone is going to be able to build in their backyard.
Just consider the neutron generator required for the U-235 gun-type bomb. You've got to have Polonium for that generator, and that's one of the most rare elements on Earth.
Moreover, the half-life of Polonium is only 138 days, which severely limits deployment times and methods. Consider that a team that wants to walk into a country or ship such a device on a slow boat could easily use up 60 of those days. Thus, the idea that such nukes could be "sleepers" (i.e. buried or hidden for years) in our own country, is really out of the question.
Gun-Triggered Fission Bomb
The simplest way to bring the subcritical masses together is to make a gun that fires one mass into the other. A sphere of U-235 is made around the neutron generator and a small bullet of U-235 is removed. The bullet is placed at the one end of a long tube with explosives behind it, while the sphere is placed at the other end. A barometric-pressure sensor determines the appropriate altitude for detonation and triggers the following sequence of events:
Little Boy was this type of bomb and had a 14.5-kiloton yield (equal to 14,500 tons of TNT) with an efficiency of about 1.5 percent. That is, 1.5 percent of the material was fissioned before the explosion carried the material away.
I'm not worried about everybody. I'm concerned about all the pissed off middle eastern grad. students I used to study physics with.
I'm concerned about the tens of thousands of unemployed Russian Biopreparat scientists.
You need 10-20 bright, resourcefull people and perhaps 50-100 million bucks.
Not all that rare these days.
And please don't call me gloomy. I'm just offering my view of the future of warfare. Its all about bang for the buck.
Obviously there is more than one way to generate neutrons.