Somehow this thread became focused on the idea that you CANNOT make a small nuke without including neutron emitters with very short half lives as part of the design. That is NOT true, although I will readily grant that it requires higher technology (especially if the nukes are small). Even if one stipulates that it is theoretically possible for an advanced nation (i.e. the US or USSR, not some two-bit Third World country) to build a "suitcase nuke" without the aid of a short-lived Neutron Helper[tm], the question remains of why anyone would choose to give up the advantage of a warhead that will quickly go bad if separated from its authorized chain of command. Again, it goes back to the fact that the Soviets were evil, not stupid.
The tabloids and a few of the less reputable on-line webzines often run off at the mouth with these bizarre articles on "suitcase" nukes.
Fear sells, after all. Worldnet Daily hyped the end of the world with the coming Y2K "bug", in fact, and these suitcase nuke tabloid articles are simply more of the same, designed to pump the adrenaline of the lesser-informed, lesser-educated among our population.
Such authors wouldn't dare mention that one of the things that a "suitcase" nuke gives up is shielding, or that the radiation exposure plays havoc with the conventional chemical explosives inside, or that the radiation degrades the electronic circuits, or that highly specialized maintenance is required for them, much less that the booster component renders such bombs into little more than "dirty" devices after slightly more than 8 years, and they certainly aren't going to mention that the isotopes used in the neutron triggers have a useful half-life of days.
No, they aren't going to mention any of those things because that would reduce the number of Chicken-Little (the sky is falling) types of responses by their readers.
These authors want people to "PANIC!", and omitting the most relevant facts in order to stir such emotions is not beneath them.
Of course, these are the same authors who ridicule their own readers behind their backs every time they see some poor creature post one of their various urban legends such as "the Soviets stored suitcase nukes in Western North Carolina decades ago and now rogue KGB agents have sold them to Bin Laden".
It's reprehensible behavior (by the authors of the tabloid articles). Sadly, such behavior will trick innocent readers again and again.
Good point about keeping control of nukes. The United States has fail safe devices designed into all of our nukes that make it absoultely certain that a stolen nuke could never be set off.
However, we do this without relying on a lack of maintenance. The basic idea prevalent on this thread that all of our own nukes need refreshing every 60 days or so is incorrect.
When the initial reports of Soviet suitcase nukes came out in the early 90s, lots of people pointed out the loss of control implied if the Soviets had designed a nuke without the usual fail safe mechanisms. This was one of the most substantial arguments raised against the concept.
Nevertheless, some high level Russian leaders insist that these weapons were built, and that some are missing. In addition, they claim they were built with very primitive fail safe provisions, and a very long shelf life before needing service.
Vladimir Putin claims no nukes are missing. I do not know his stated position on whether suitcase nukes exist.
Presumably President Bush knows the truth of the matter. If so, he hasn't let me in on the secret. Most likely, he hasn't told anyone posting on this thread either.
Another misconception on this thread centers on how large a nuke needs to be. The "steamer trunk" idea is ludicrous. Small nukes most definitely can be built, and several nations have done so (including the U.S.).
In short, we may or may not be facing a threat from small nukes smuggled into our country. But to claim we CANNOT be facing such a threat because of technical reasons is not true.