The hard part has seems to be the metallurgical process of enriching the material (and doing it in secret), not the actual building of the bomb. I bet if you asked any physics grad student they could build you a viable bomb.
The hard part has seems to be the metallurgical process of enriching the material (and doing it in secret), not the actual building of the bomb. I bet if you asked any physics grad student they could build you a viable bomb.
What do you mean exactly? They could build something that goes boom, they could build first try a 100% yield fission bomb...? Just because someone builds an explosive device that incorporates fissile material into the design doesn't mean they've cracked the problem. I bet I could build a "viable bomb" if you give me the resources, I just can't say with any certainty it won't fizzle or it won't be a dirty bomb. Can you do your deterrence with a warhead filled with C4 strapped to uranium ore, while I use the money saved to go on vacation?
I mean the trinity test didn't fizzle out. Seems like most bomb tests went off without a hitch first go. Again these were mostly teams of physicists under 30 years old doing this work. I would guess "how I would build my nuclear bomb" is a pretty ever present thought experiment for nuclear physics grads. And if you were empowered by a state to solve this problem with all the resources states typically devote to their own nuclear programs, it just won't be a matter of "if." Once again, no one who walked down this path has failed really. The secret sauce is probably boringly simple and readily apparent in small scale experimentation.