The Pros And Cons Of The Improvised Nuclear Weapon

Great post this week, it was very interesting. The chances that a terrorist organization could build their own nuclear weapon without nobody noticing it are very low. Terrorist do not have the money nor the infrastructure necessary to do it (American Public University, 2016). The only way in which I could see terrorists carrying out a nuclear attack anywhere in the world is if Iran or North Korea provides terrorist with a nuclear weapon. That is also very unlikely because those nuclear states know that after the nuclear attack, the uranium will be traced back to the country that facilitated the nuclear weapon. This will result in retaliation and probably in a nuclear attack from another state. Therefore, as much as they would like to facilitate

This weapon can be used in nuclear terrorism or intimidation. Because of this, various public organizations resist the wide use of nuclear power.

The possibility of terrorist groups attacking and gaining access to nuclear facilities has been examined in much detail since September 11, 2001 (Chapin et al.). Opponents of nuclear power generation claim that it is far too easy for rebel forces to make dirty bombs out of nuclear waste. Dirty bombs could be made from spent fuel rods and could be devastating if detonated in an urban area; however, they are also harmful to their maker and easily detected (Chapin et al., Maiello). Large cities such as New York have also begun training first responders to detect and deal with dirty bombs (Maiello).

Nuclear terrorism is described to be an extreme threat to global security, any radiological or nuclear attacks on the U.S would cause in dire and profound consequences for the country.

As you can see from Chernobyl, and other places, nuclear explosives are no joke, and could back fire and explode at any moment. With the strength that they are built with, that could be a problem, especially if there are others nearby, which could cause a chain reaction, or total antihalation. The thing is, with more and more nuclear bombs being produced, and the more easy they are becoming to make, people like Isis could get ahold of them, and they could use nuclear bombs as weapons, which is a scary thought. This is why I think nuclear bombs should be left out of wars, and kept on 24 hour super secure lockdown.

Mr. President, upon your request, I have analyzed and researched the war effort against Japan and I have come up with what I believe to be the best possible recommendation. As you well know, your predecessor President Roosevelt initiated the Manhattan Project in 1943, the year after our scientists were about to successfully about produce a self-sustaining controlled nuclear reaction. Since then the atomic bomb has been successfully be tested in Trinity and, if used in the war, is expected to create 250,000 casualties. Naturally, a weapon with this kind of potential would create significant debate in Congress. Currently the Secretary of State urges us to deploy the atomic bomb in order to reduce long-term casualties. On the other spectrum, the Under-Secretary of State, an expert on Japanese diplomacy, is a strong voice against the use of the bomb. As the debate continues, we continue to experience three threats: potential soviet expansion, a nuclear arms race, and our alarming high casualty rate.

“A nuclear bomb is defined as ‘an explosive device that derives its destructive force from nuclear reactions, either fission or a combination of fission and fusion. Both reactions release vast quantities of energy from relatively small amounts of matter.’ “

As Muslim extremists battle for supremacy, it has hindered al Qaeda's climb to power. However, the current dominate group, Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) may be an even more dangerous foe. ISIS openly claimed in 2014, that they had retrieved 40 kilograms of uranium from the Iraqi university in Mosul. (Haines 2014, para.2) The uranium taken is not weapons grade, but could be used to construct a "dirty bomb". The means and will are in place, now it is only a matter of time until means and will are combined with expertise and execution of

(United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2015) This type of bomb could have devastating impacts on the local population and environment depending on population density and environmental factors. These types of Radiological Dispersal Devices (RDD) would potentially cost an huge amount of money to clean up and cause wide spread contamination. These dirty bombs also create a political issue. The impact of having such an attack could cause instability through wide spread panic and loss of faith in the security of the nation. (United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

The reason that the dirty bomb is such an imminent threat is because of the ease of making it. If terrorist wanted

Since Cs-137 is primarily a product from fission reactions, countries such as Iran must be closely monitored not only from a nuclear weapon standpoint, but also from the angle of hazardous waste control. Iran and other states with like ideologies that sponsor terror use terrorist organizations as a proxy to further their ambitions both internally and internationally (Ray, 2006, p 111). If it is ever shown that Iran, or another country, is failing to control radioactive waste products either intentionally or through lack of oversight, international actions should be swift, with options including varying levels of economic sanctions based on the severity of the issue through physical destruction of nuclear facilities via surreptitious means. The monitoring of nuclear programs in these countries must have international backing, provide zero notice prior to inspection, and have for force of law behind them rather than a simple notice of non-compliance. Since ideology is not something that can be changed with military or social pressure, preparations closer to America should take place to prevent or minimize the effect from a radiological

In 1945, the United States of America utilized breakthrough physics research to construct nuclear bombs which were then dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki; this event was the beginning of weaponizing modern technologies for Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs). Since the bombing of Japan during World War I, the use of bombs as the main means of terrorism has been the corner-stone in anti-terrorism preparedness and response. However, the use of commercial jetliners in the September 11th attacks in the United States ushered in an era of counter-terrorism where conventional WMDs were not the only resources that could be utilized in an attack. The use of modern technology for weapons of mass destruction has prompted the creation of

Nuclear weapons are complicated. To be effective, the fuel must be no more than 7 percent Pu-240. When fuel rods are spent, they are 26 percent Pu-240. To make weapons with this material would be nigh impossible for amateurs and extremely difficult for experts. Then, there are those that view nuclear plants as possible terrorist targets. However, terrorists tend to prefer soft targets that kill many people, which meltdowns tend to not

The U.S. dropped an A-Bomb on Hiroshima, Japan on August 6, 1945 and another on Nagasaki, Japan 3 days later. The Japanese Army and Government already knew they were going to lose the war, but they didn’t want to surrender immediately because they feared having harsh punishments and reparations like those of the Treaty of Versailles. Sure, there could have been other options that might not have as many deaths, but there is no guarantee that there would be success in ending the war. Historians on the opposing side of this debate say that there were too many Japanese civilian deaths and that the Japanese didn’t kill as many American civilians. This may be true but if the US would have used plan B which could have been a large invasion similar to D-Day, more casualties would have been caused. The U.S. made a great decision to drop the Atomic Bombs to end World War Two.

Atomic bombs, a weapon of mass destruction, were used to help end World War II. This, in turn, shoulders tremendous dangers for the future of humanity. Scientists are the direct builders of these weapons; thus, they play a vital role in their use. However, not all scientists agree on what stance to take with their creation. To this day, many nuclear scientists think of their work as purely mathematical and technical. The human results of nuclear weapons are none of their business. Others, especially after Hiroshima, suffered a huge blow to their conscience. In particular, Robert Jungk addresses his take on the issue in his book “Brighter than a Thousand Suns”. Here, he felt that there was a disconnection between scientific research and personal