We've all been hearing/reading lately about Iran's extensive nuclear bomb-building programs. They've been working on it for years with multi-million dollar labs, enrichment plants, planned underground test facilities, etc. etc. "Experts" still say they are likely still a number of years away from having a working bomb.

My question is...if it takes so many years/even decades, millions of dollars, etc. from a country the size of Iran to produce one nuke, then why is there so much talk of Al-Queda already having "11 - 70 nuclear devices"? You'd think that if it took one of the middle east's largest and most powerful nations so much time and money to make a bomb, then there's now way that a comparativley small band of terrorists could already have more nuclear devices that most European nations.

Is it because there is really a massive design difference between suitcase nukes and the big cans of sunshine? I would have thought that the technology would've been pretty similar, but even still I'm assuming that it must be the size of the devices that makes the difference.

Where am I going wrong here?

Thanks/apologies for the ignorance.

They supposedly bought them from the Russian client states after the USSR breakup.

Quoted: why is there so much talk of Al-Queda already having "11 - 70 nuclear devices"?.

If AQ really had them, they would have used at least one by now. It is the highest tool of terror the world knows and they know if and when they get one, they will use it quickly in fear of losing the chance.

there was never a concern about them BUILDING a bomb, the worry was/is that they would ACQUIRE one.

russia has/had ~30k warheads at one point in time.  the soldiers who are supposed to be guarding them havnt been paid in quite some time, so the concern is that some nefarious character would swing in, offer some $$ and make off with a bomb (think Lord of War)

the concern about Iraq, Iran and other neer-do-well states is not so much that THEY would use the bomb.  even as radical of a country as Iran is, they would most likely never use the bomb, BUT they would be very inclined to give it to someone who would.


kinda scarry

Quoted: there was never a concern about them BUILDING a bomb, the worry was/is that they would ACQUIRE one. russia has/had ~30k warheads at one point in time.  the soldiers who are supposed to be guarding them havnt been paid in quite some time, so the concern is that some nefarious character would swing in, offer some $$ and make off with a bomb (think Lord of War) the concern about Iraq, Iran and other neer-do-well states is not so much that THEY would use the bomb.  even as radical of a country as Iran is, they would most likely never use the bomb, BUT they would be very inclined to give it to someone who would. kinda scarry

In the same line of thought, why can't Iran just acquire some nukes clandestinely from the former USSR/black market? Again, if a comparatively small band of terrorists can do it, then why can't a huge middle eastern powerhouse do it?

easy:  it's a lot easier to have a nuke dissappear to who-knows-where than to sell it to iran.  it's a lot easier for the world to watch a country than it is to watch some nebulous NGO

Quoted: Quoted: why is there so much talk of Al-Queda already having "11 - 70 nuclear devices"?. If AQ really had them, they would have used at least one by now. It is the highest tool of terror the world knows and they know if and when they get one, they will use it quickly in fear of losing the chance.

i think wildboar had a good point.

personally, i assume its the "dirty suit case" bombs that everyones so worried about, pretty much a suit case bomb that will send out a ton of radiation in a small crouded area.

id much rather see us make the M.E. a big sheet of glass, unfortunatly we wont do that