Re:Non-technical problems (Score 1)

There are countermeasures to the smuggling of weapons onto airlines. Are they perfect? No. But the destruction of an airline is not as easy as you say - otherwise we would have a constant rain of jets falling. The people that are fighting the US have ample amounts of hate and would use any method possible to attack the airliners.
As to eliminating the passengers on the ground or at the airport - I'm a bit lost on that one. Are you saying chemical or bio weapons? Or direct attack? Or something else? Neither is easy or foolproof, even with the stellar airport security currently in place.
The biggest change to the environment is that the average people fight back, instead of letting the terrorists push them around, so the terrorists have a much more difficult time of perpetrating their crimes.

>

Then why don't they already have them? First, purchasing them is not risk-free or cheap - It takes a large amount of money to purchase even one (remember the seller's market) and the other parties (US, UK, etc) who don't want you to get one will attempt to dupe you, grabbing your operative and cash.
Also, you are limited to purchasing from people that are _sure_ 1) You are not a foreign goverment trying to gain proof that they are selling nukes and 2)that you are not going to use the nuke against _them_. The paranoia of the states that would sell nukes is a factor in all dealings with them.
Add onto this is that the need for a reliable nuclear weapon and a delivery system. Suitcase nukes are a good item, but the real supplier of those would be the US or UK - they are highly complex items that require high-tech maintenance and manufacturing. The cruder nuclear weapons are large, bulky, and worst of all, not 100% reliable. This will be especially bad from the nukes held by people with zero money. So either you buy lots of nukes (multiply above problems) or hope the one you bought goes off.
Now you need to use it before the nuke 'goes bad' - they do have a shelf life, and worse of all, don't have an easy way to tell if they are unuseable. So you have to rush to a target, instead of relying on the perfect opportunity to drop in your lap. Time is now against you, which will affect your success, secrecy, and effectiveness.

>

Heck with 'traditional view'. After 9/11 and Afghanistan, countries are having to be careful f what groups they shelter do, even if not in their name. They realize that _they_ will be held accountable, and a failed nuclear attack is only better in that the coming attack won't be fueled by rage. Without the tacit support of host nations, moving nukes around becomes dicey at best.

*Apologies for the next, as we're getting into the politics, which I was tring to avoid, but if it needs to be addressed*

I'm sorry - I don't find a lot of awe from people willing to die. Japan in WWII had a large group of people willing to do so, and they still lost. Yes, initally the kamakazies did quite a bit of damage, but our strategies and tactics changed to limit their effectiveness. They were not able to destroy their enemies, because the US had (and has) an immense strength in depth. The US can take these attacks and continue forward. The non-conventional forces cannot afford equal defeats. This disparity in constitution (please pardon the pun) is why the attacking groups will be adverse to too many risks.

The cry to the other people's plight also doesn't do much for me. Their condition is caused by their govermental systems, and they have allowed their goverments to exist. I don't buy the 'US is always at fault' - the people are accountable for the system that they have. History has proven no amount of monetary aid will raise these countries up-it disappears into a corrupt pit. The only effective aid has been aid with requirements and 'hooks', which despotic regimes (surprise) refuse - they need to keep their population in line and focus the hatred of the people at something, normally the US.
The argument that they have nothing to lose reinforces the need to spend more in defense, especially if there is not a current way of protecing yourself from a particular type of attack. The attacker will attack no matter what, so why not be able to blunt their attack and then respond?
Conversion of the US defense dollars into aid will make an attack more likely, by stregthening the attacker, by encouraging the rogue states (by a lack of consequences from their behavior), and by weaking the US's defenses.