I have heard reports of nations having nuclear technology but not the means to deliver even though they have missles.

What is the difference to the missle if it is conventional, bio, chemical, or nuclear at the front end?

Gatman, to answer your question, it makes absolutely no difference to the missile what kind of warhead is attached. But, what is of the utmost importance is the capability of that missile as a delivery mechanism. If you can't get the warhead to the target, then basically the missile is worthless.

You are correct that many nations may have a nuclear capability but don't have the delivery means. This basically means that they may pose a regional threat but do not have a global threat which would manifest itself in the form of Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs). This is one of the reasons that the launching of objects into space by China a few years back with the assistance of LORAL raised some serious security concerns. Prior to that launch, China had the warheads, but not the means to accurately deliver those weapons outside of a regional influence with any accuracy. After the LORAL incident, it is believed that China now has greatly improved their delivery means accuracy and increased the vulnerability of the US.

One of the reasons that Iraq was not a "huge" threat during the Gulf War was their lack of a delivery system. Sure they had SCUD missiles, but for all intensive purposes those were basically unguided rockets that were aimed in the general direction of population centers, kind of like the German "V" weapons of WW2. Should they get better delivery systems, they could expand their sphere of influence and terror to Europe and eventually the US.

Bottomline is that a bullet can kill, but only if it can be aimed to hit the target reliably, else it is just a hunk of lead.

So if Iraq has a nuke and puts it on a scud it is no big deal? Even if it missed its intended ground zero by 20 miles on what could easily be a 300 mile trip the immediate area and the fallout would be substantial damage. Would it bother Saddm if it missed by that much? Or if it actually landed in PLO territory?

They do not have Inter Continental Ballistic Missile. That's the difference.

Yeah sure, some of these countries can deliver their payload (of what ever kills of course) over a short distance, but they are not considered a threat until they can deliver that package at your front door.

That is the reference you will usually hear - Basically telling us that they (who ever they may be) do not have missile to deliver their deadly delights - meaning on your front door step.

ICBM is the big guy on the block, Able to deliver a substantial payload to just about all points on the globe from a given point. That is the prize of the 21st century, to be able to threaten those on the other side of the earth from you.

Unfortunately the Media tends to see these ICBM's as being the important weapondry to have, not fully understanding that some of the smaller missles with a range of 500 or less miles can be launched from a ship and are far more deadlier in that there is no warning time to counter attack and possibly 'shoot' down the missle before it reaches it's target.

And your right, nuclear weapons today do not require accurate targeting, heck, miss by 20 miles, that target will be destroyed or damaged enough to be considered a kill.

David