Miscellaneous desk
< September 17	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 19 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 18

How tall are the three men?

How tall are the three men in the picture?--百楽兎 (talk) 01:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be amazed to know we have Heights of United States Presidents and presidential candidates? Apparently Bush Sr. was 6'2" and Reagan was 6'1". I don't know about Gorbachev but obviously he is a few inches shorter. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0329784/bio Gorbachev is 5' 9" (1.75 m). SteveBaker (talk) 01:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reagan was 6'1"? But Bush Sr. seemed much taller than Reagan in the picture...--百楽兎 (talk) 02:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Old people shrink. Reagan was likely 6'1" in his prime, but in this picture he was in his mid-70's, while Bush Sr. was in his early 60's. So combine a) the natural tendance of people to shrink when they get older b) his posture in the picture, and c) illusions of perspective because of where the men are standing and it does not look all that out-of-whack. --Jayron32 02:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And, although slight, the difference in the height of their shoes should be factored in. Dismas|^(talk) 15:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may also notice that Reagan is leaning forward somewhat, with his shoulders hunched - can't see if his knees are bent - whearas Bush and Gorbachev are standing more erect. B00P (talk) 17:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minitab

am very new to this statistical software called Minitab, how do I go about mastering it as the book seems to be very less helpful, are there any videos we can download and learn as I do learn from visuals more than the text. Anyone please help..

There are a great many Minitab tutorials on the internet, as evidenced by this Google search. Consider adding search terms to narrow to your specific area of interest. Videos will be less common, but are probably still available for common functions. Consider using Google's video search to find them. — Lomn 12:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks LOMN.. appreciate it.thank you

Australia

Hi me and my friend are wanting to take a gap year between finishing college and going to university. Our dream destination is Australia. I was just wanting some advice on what visa's and regualtions are in place. We are wanting to go for about a year. We're both UK citizen. Any other advice like where to stay, jobs etc would be great.

Thanks 81.129.200.83 (talk) 09:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I could go on for hours with this as i did exactly the same thing! If you contact me via my talk page or use my username here to find my website via google, I can speak to you via email at length about where to go what to do etc... As to the legalities of the visas and regulations, A) things may have changed since I left there 8 years ago, and b) we aren't supposed to give legal advice on here... Please contact me via email or talk page though as i can suggest some great ideas... Gazhiley (talk) 11:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You'll find a lot of helpful information here.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

commercial

This week on New Zealand Television, I heard a quote in a US TV show from a female character who claimed she was on a commericial in which one of the lines was " Pretty sneaky, sis. " This same later was later spoken this week by Charlie Sheen on " 3½ Men ", for some reason, in the episode in which his Mother faked a heart attack. Now I cannot remember the first show on which I saw the female character, nor whether she was a real person playing herself, or a character on a show claiming to have been on a real ad. Was the ad real ? I assume it was American, and if anyone can remember the show on which the woman claimed to have been on the commericial, that would be great, too. I have an idea it could have been the episode of " My name is Earl " in which Seth Green played a dying man Earl had wronged earlier in life, whose wish was to make a film.

Any details, please enlighten me. Thanks, Chris Lilly, " The Russian ", CHRISTCHURCH, New Zealand, also at (email removed for privacy)

Google gives an advert for Connect Four as it's top hit for "Pretty sneaky sis" Nanonic (talk) 10:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I assume u mean 2½ Men? Gazhiley (talk) 11:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Insert joke about New Zealand exchange rate here FiggyBee (talk) 13:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Sachin

where did Sachin made his 42th test century?

Seddon Park - Fribbler (talk) 17:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gandhi in Kanthi

In which year did Mahatma Gandhi Came to Kanthi?

That would appear to be a mixed metaphor, as Gandhi is a person and Kanthi links as a necklace. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kanthi is an alternate name for Contai, a subdivisional town in India. — Lomn 17:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to this source, Gandhi's first visit to Kanthi was in July 1925. He returned for a visit from 30 December 1945 to 3 January 1946. Marco polo (talk) 01:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

question about illness and president of US

If you are scheduled to meet the president and end up getting a contagious illness (say the H1N1 flu), would you not be permitted to meet with him on the grounds that it is not a great idea to get the pres sick? Who would be able to make such a determination?

Googlemeister (talk) 14:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone with flu ought to quarantine themselves, regardless of who they are scheduled to meet. --Tango (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Initially, you are responsible for making the determination. If you're feeling sick and think, "I can still go to work" then you are making that determination. If you knowingly had H1N1 and tried to conceal it due to the importance of the meeting, then you are taking on that responsibility. If you were to inform the president's staff that you were a confirmed case of H1N1, then they would most likely make the decision for you and postpone the meeting. Dismas|^(talk) 18:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you knowingly concealed a contagious infection before meeting the president then 1. the screeners are not doing a good job and 2. I bet you could be brought up on charges - conspiracy to commit treason or something equally as fear-instilling. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 18:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really can not see the National Security Adviser, or the Speaker of the House getting brought in for treason simply because they tried to work through a "relatively" common illness. Googlemeister (talk) 18:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article III, section 3: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. So no. As a practical matter, treason prosecutions are virtually impossible except in extremely rare circumstances. Even Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were not charged with treason (for one thing, the prosecution would have had to prove that the Soviet Union was legally an "Enemy" of the United States). --Trovatore (talk) 23:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

palestinian refugees in iran

After reading news dispatches regarding "unity" with Palestinians, I have sought information regarding Palestinian presence, if any, in Iran,and if available, the dispersion of Palestinians in the Middle East.

A succinct question might be--"What is total Palestinian population in the Middle East, and by country?

A second, related question would be, "Are Palestinians absorbed into general populations in these countries?"

Our article Palestinian diaspora has some data, but none for Iran I'm afraid. The first challenge for your subsidiary question is going to be coming up with a definition of what constitutes the Middle East. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 18:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are no Palestinian refugees in Iran. They have to pass through other countries to reach Iran. --Omidinist (talk) 05:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq-Iran

What are Iraq-Iran Relations like? Thank You --GollumSnakes (talk) 16:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I put your questions into seperate headers. Please don't put unrelated questions under the same header in the future. Nil Einne (talk) 17:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See our article on Iran-Iraq relations. — Lomn 17:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snakes

Most toughest snake to kill? Thank You --GollumSnakes (talk) 16:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Osama bin Laden? :) What do you mean by "toughest to kill"? You chop their head off, they're pretty much dead, no matter the species. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably some variety of deep sea snake is toughest to find, and thus toughest to kill. Otherwise, I'm in agreement with Bugs -- dead is dead, and we're good at killing individual snakes. — Lomn 17:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go with Black Mamba. They live in the jungle and they have a terribly potent bite. Vranak (talk) 18:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Titanoboa would have been pretty difficult, weighing more than a ton and as long as a bus. Fortunately there aren't any around any more. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In General, large animals are more difficult to kill then small animals in a straight up fight. If your snake is trying to escape from you though, a small fast snake might be more difficult. So I guess the answer is that it depends on the situation. PS you probably should not go out of your way to kill snakes. They may look mean, but most would just as soon avoid people. Googlemeister (talk) 20:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there seem to be 2 questions here: (a) which is the hardest to capture?, and (b) having captured it, which is the hardest to kill? Being somewhat herpetologically challenged, I cannot answer either question. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is first capturing it really the best way to kill a wild snake? Algebraist 23:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snake Plissken of course, duuuh. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Moss

Randy Moss most dropped catches? Thank You --GollumSnakes (talk) 16:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Be more specific. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the word catches made me think that he was a catcher in baseball but apparently Randy Moss is a wide receiver in American football. According to this, as of Sep 14, 2009, he has dropped just one pass. Although, that seems to just be for this season alone. This page claims that he dropped seven passes last season. Dismas|^(talk) 17:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I asked him to elaborate. He could be asking which season Moss had the most dropped catches. He could also be asking if Moss holds a record for most dropped catches. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that. The broken English of the question makes it unclear what they are inquiring about. But on the other side of the coin, I might have gotten lucky and answered their question with the links I provided. They could come back and be more specific but chances are they won't since very few of the OPs seem to ever come back and thank us for answering their questions or asking follow-ups. Dismas|^(talk) 18:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found other sources claiming 9 drops for last season (and one claiming 6). I'm forced to conclude that drops are one of those stats (tackles and assisted tackles being the highest-profile examples) that are highly dependent on who's watching the game rather than being an objective value. Perhaps that's why it's so hard to find a historical record. — Lomn 18:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His year with the Oakland Raiders would probably be the right answer, since he wasn't really interested in performing well when he was with them. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, what was the year Moss wrecked the most cars? PhGustaf (talk) 21:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ear piercing

Why dosen't it hurt, like what is the science behind why/Accdude92 (talk) (sign) 16:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are relatively few nerves in the area, thus it's less sensitive to pain. — Lomn 17:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who says it doesn't hurt? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not having ever got my ears pierced I did note that one ear piercing place uses ice to first numb the ear. Whether this is because the piercing itself is painful or whether it is to assuage fears of the customers that it would be painful (when it might not be) I do not know. Googlemeister (talk) 20:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So when you pierce your ear, and you let it close up, do the nevers grow back?Accdude92 (talk) (sign) 22:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I used to pierce ears for a living and I can safely say it varies greatly.Some people seemed not to notice,some winced a bit and others screamed.I believe people feel pain differently so it is non quantifiable.However it doesn't last long however painful it feels...hotclaws 20:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hysterectomy

Yes, this is a media question. No, it is not media advice. There is no diagnosis or prognosis being requested, it is a simple query for factual information. Please read Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines/Medical advice before hastily and wrongfully removing this question

If a hypothetical woman living in the UK wanted a hysterectomy, but was healthy and had no medical reason to have one, would she be able to have the surgery performed anyway? Obviously the NHS probably wouldn't pay for it, but could this surgery be done privately? Are there any laws preventing someone from having a hysterectomy for personal reasons?

If she is healthy and there is no medical reason to have one, she would likely find it difficult to find a doctor willing to perform unneeded surgery. Googlemeister (talk) 18:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Laws preventing elective surgery seem unlikely. The NHS specifically has information on elective hysterectomies, making a legal prohibition seem even less likely. I'd expect more difficulties finding a doctor willing to perform unnecessary surgery, per GM above. — Lomn 18:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Media or medical? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 18:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The surgeon who performed such an operation _might_ be prosecuted for assault, consent notwithstanding (see Operation Spanner), and would be exposed to a very great risk of being struck off for performing an operation he/she knew was unnecessary (see Bolam test). But this probably falls foul of the page's prohibition on giving legal advice... Tevildo (talk) 19:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

prosecuted by who? if the patient was willing, who would be prosecuting?

The Crown Prosecution Service, as it's a criminal offence. Volentia non fit injuria only applies (in English law, at least) to civil cases. To take an extreme example, if I ask you to kill me, and you do so, you're still guilty of murder. Tevildo (talk) 21:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Asking to be killed and asking to have a non-vital organ removed are hardly the same thing. And for any surgery, at least where I've been (in the USA), especially one requiring sedation or anesthetic, you are usually asked to sign a waiver that acknowledges there's a risk you could die. That doesn't mean you'll find a doctor willing to do it. Tubal ligation for preventing pregnancy is a much more common and accepted procedure that most any surgeon (except maybe a Catholic) would be willing to do. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, consent is a _necessary_ element of a legal surgical procedure, but isn't _sufficient_ to make such a procedure legal. For a less extreme example, female circumcision is illegal (except for genuine medical reasons) in the UK, irrespective of consent - in the words of the statute, "no account is to be taken of any belief of that person or any other person that the operation is required as a matter of custom or ritual". Tevildo (talk) 10:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I would also note, consent may not be enough to protect from civil action either. Just because someone gave consent at the time doesn't mean they aren't going to change their minds, and anyone or business would be stupid to think that there's no risk the person will change the minds. And the person could be declared mentally incompetent meaning the guardian may take action on behalf of the person. Also, a waiver doesn't protect against genuine malpractice. Indeed if there was insufficient explanation of the risks the waiver may not be sufficient either. Nil Einne (talk) 11:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tubal ligation is routine surgery in America. Maybe England has some laws against it or something. But while a doctor could be sued for malpractice, i.e. a botched operation, the likelihood of his being either sued or arrested because the patient changed their mind later, I would think is virtually nill. In fact, vasectomies are reversible (at significant cost), so I would guess that tubal ligations are also. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The leading case in this area is Chester v Afshar. The surgeon wasn't incompetent, but the patient claimed that she wouldn't have consented to the operation if she'd known the risk of failure. The court ruled (by a 3-2 majority, with powerful dissenting opinions - "[T]his argument is about as logical as saying that if one had been told, on entering a casino, that the odds on No 7 coming up at roulette were only 1 in 37, one would have gone away and come back next week") that her consent was invalid. Tevildo (talk) 12:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's why, at least at the places I've gone for minor surgery, the waiver states the risks along with stating precisely what the surgery does. So if someone were to claim they didn't know tubal ligation would render them sterile, the judge would likely say, "Did you read it before you signed it?" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answers so far. The main issue seems to be a perceived unnecessary element for the surgery. How about psychological issues? After reading the Hysterectomy article there seems to be a reason for gender reassignment surgery. Would other psychological issues, such as an extreme hate for one's own reproductive system to the point of self harm count as a good enough reason? Again, purely hypothetical.

Ahh, but that is (arguably) a genuine medical reason. There was a case some years ago when a patient suffering from body dysmorphia had his leg amputated, because he would have cut it off himself if left to his own devices. I assume the hypothetical case you mention would be similar. Tevildo (talk) 21:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the specific case of sex reassignment surgeries there are usually some quite involved processes before they will be performed including a reasonable term of psychological evaluation to ensure the person has no other underlying issues and is not likely to change their mind, and other stuff like real life experiences. This is discussed in Sex reassignment surgery and Legal aspects of transsexualism to some extent, including specific mention of NHS requirements. I would note that while private surgeries may not have the same requirements as NHS ones, there would likely still be some reasonably strong requirements. While I don't know much about the leg amputation case my guess is that there would have been attempts to 'treat' the body dysmorphia before surgery was contemplated. And multiple parties including I suspect at least one psychologist had to concur, including perhaps some sort of ethics review board. In any case, I'm going to go out on a limb here and presume this is related to the question on the science desk. In that specific case there are several obvious issues. For starters if you are so terrified of getting raped, that sounds like another problem that needs to be dealt with in some way before such drastic surgery will even be considered. Similar if the person is terrified of getting pregnant, well again that's likely to be dealt with whether to determine there's an underlying reason for the fear of pregnancy (which is pretty low risk if you don't engage in sexual intercourse) that can be 'treated' or just to do some form of (probably reversible) sterilisation. Nil Einne (talk) 11:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the story on the leg amputation case - [1]. The surgeon responsible wasn't struck off, but the hospital refused to allow him to do any more such operations becuase it would "damage their reputation". Definitely a very grey area of medical ethics. Tevildo (talk) 12:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stout-Lager beer

Can the Stout beer be considered a Lager? What kind of yeast should I use to make a Stout? 82.59.68.232 (talk) 19:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stout says "Stout and porter are dark beers, and more specifically ales..." Friday (talk) 19:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think just as long as you have a good brewing yeast you can use any kind. It is specifically the chocolate malt and black malt that gives the stout its dark yet smooth taste (well that depends, of course theres stouts which arent particularly smooth, like rauchbiers). --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if stouts are normally ale yeast, you're going to have a rather unconventional one if you use lager yeast. What you end up with may be more of a dunkle than a stout. Friday (talk) 21:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is of course very true. I mainly wanted to stress that the black colour and flavour itself mostly comes from the way the malt has been roasted, but of course the yeast does play a very important part in the components of the beer as well. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all of you. My real aim was just to make a dark beer using Lager yeast, so Dunkel style will be perfect! 15 - 18° C (59 - 64.4° F) could be good? Or should I wait some week for autumn's cold? 87.6.126.52 (talk) 23:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of definitions, an ale is top-fermented (yeast lies of top), larger bottom. All such drinks are beers. The medieval distinction was between ales (no hops) and beers (with hops), but that language usage is obsolete. --Leon (talk) 13:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Davy Crockett (nuclear device)

How long might it take Iran and North Korea to produce personal portable nuclear weapons like our Davy Crocett and distribute them to suicide bombers and send them to the US? -- Taxa (talk) 23:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Making very small and compact warheads is extremely difficult—the sort of thing that a very well-developed nuclear state could do, but not a new one. It is generally agreed that in order to really develop them, you need to test fire a number of weapons first (you can't just work it out from first principles).

If Iran and North Korea really set their minds to it, they could probably manage it in, I don't know, fifteen years or so, as long as they were able to have a few significant test series in that time (e.g. being able to detonate four or five different designs). That would be a very optimistic guess. More likely would be twenty or thirty years. Keep in mind it took the US twenty years to develop the Davy Crockett originally itself—and that was during a period in which it spends billions of dollars on weapons development. More is publicly known now than was known then, but even so, Iran and North Korea don't have one tenth of the nuclear resources of the United States.

A bigger and better question is whether they would bother. Tactical nuclear weapons are very expensive, very hard to make, and giving them to random terrorists is such a reckless and dangerous thing to do that anybody who wants to stay in power would know better. If you start distributing tactical nuclear weapons, do not be surprised if one goes off somewhere you don't want it to. I don't see this as likely at all—what they want is something of a credible deterrence, something that will keep the U.S. (or Israel) from bombing them. Developing tactical nukes won't do that.

Note that it is much easier to make a nuclear bomb that is, say, the size of a Volkswagen bug. If you wanted to send nukes to the US, you'd find it much easier to make a few of those, put them onto tanker ships, and slip them into the barely-monitored US ports. If you were clever about it, you could take out Boston, San Francisco, and New York for probably 1/10,000th the cost that it would take to develop tactical nuclear weapons. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 00:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But I'm sure we would know about the construction and deployment of a volkswagon size bomb on any size ship coming from Iran or North Korea going by out ability to stop shipments from North Korea. But then we did not know about 9/11 so... -- Taxa (talk) 01:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I don't think so. Not only does North Korea have a large cargo ship fleet of its own (167 ships in 2006, says the CIA), it would be relatively trivial (if you had a high motivation for doing it) to "loose" a cargo container (each of which are large enough to hold a few automobiles—or bombs) in the system (transfer it from one port to another, from one ship to another, etc.). U.S. ports are notoriously insecure and there are several million cargo containers shipped to the United States each year, with a minimal of inspection and examination. That's a MUCH larger national security threat than the threat of tactical nukes. Again, it would cost probably 1/10,000th (ballpark) the cost to work out an operation like that than to both developing the nuclear infrastructure needed to make tactical nukes (which are much more dangerous for the developing country to use, anyway). --98.217.14.211 (talk) 13:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's unlikely they would ship directly from North Korea. And I doubt it would be a VW, more like a Smart Car, as kind of a little joke on us. "Smart Car Bomb". Get it? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So Davy Crocket died at El Alamo - was Davy Crockett (nuclear device) exploded at Los Alamos? Another little nuclear humor. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. I'm still trying to figure out why 9/11 instead of 7/11. -- Taxa (talk) 04:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because they work at and manage many 7/11 stores? That does not mean they would choose 7/11 as the date for an attack. I don't think anyone has determined why 9/11/01 was chosen. For all we know, it might have been the date they got the best airline fare. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it is very unlikely they would try this. You can't actually use nuclear weapons, you just hold on to them as a deterrent (the only ones ever used were used when the USA was the only country that had them). You would only use them if you face complete destruction anyway, since any use of nuclear weapons will get you destroyed (see Mutual assured destruction). The only exception is if you have some way to stop anyone else attacking you with nuclear weapons, which is why Russia was so opposed to the USA's planned missile shield (well, one reason, anyway) - I can't see Iran or North Korea developing an effective missile shield, no-one else has. If you do face destruction then you need to attack quickly, so missiles are the way to go - a suitcase bomb would take too long to get into position (you can't really stash it in the target country, too great a chance of being caught - you can't develop something like that without people noticing, so the local security agencies would be on the lookout). --Tango (talk) 01:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm less sanguine about the possibility that someone could deliver and stash such a weapon—if they were not worried about retaliation. You could bring over a large weapon in pieces and it would not be that hard. (A gun-type device is just enriched uranium, a gun barrel, some explosives, and a tamper if you're nasty.) You could do it, IF you aren't afraid of being bombed yourself immediately afterwards. Which is why no state is likely to do it. But a state-less entity? Maybe. al-Qaeda is not too worried about mutually assured destruction, from all appearances. The trick is not to let those people get one. I don't think a state would help them out—that would also be risky for the state, since it is rather trivial to trace the origin of a nuke by its fallout, and even a nutty state like North Korea would know that. Additionally, giving weapons to terrorists backfires in the long-term—think about US distribution of Stinger missiles to the mujahadeen in the Soviet-Afghan war. Still, there is a real possibility of nuclear theft (esp. from Russia). Fortunately these things are harder to pull off than the news magazines would make out—there's no obvious market for selling stolen nuclear material that doesn't put the seller at GREAT risk of being caught if not killed. Still... it's disconcerting. It's a real threat, albeit a preventable one. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 00:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suitcase nuke is relevant reading. Tempshill (talk) 05:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]