I'm not justifying the power balance, just pointing it out. Indeed, I'd argue that it remains a highly unjust balance; until such time as Russia is as democratic and beneficient as Germany or Japan, and places like Syria and Iran have no post-commie umbrella to get shade under, the balance remains insufficiently just for humanity.

My understanding is the Yanks HELPED the Brits and French, and I would not be surprised if the Russkies helped the Chinese to get their first programs.

You are correct in the sense that the Russians helped the Pakistanis, and likely the Indians as well, and the Americans likely helped the Israelis.

But global delivery systems are a different story.

Let me rephrase: if PR and strategic expediency for some reason obviates the Western motive to smack Iran's burgeoning efforts, and Russia's efforts to help Iran get nukes succeeds, you and I both know that the consequence will be U.S. will then "help" Saudi, and Israel (Turkey?) to get the means to nullify that capacity.

We are led back to my balance of power argument: the balance of power remains Western Powers vs. Post-Commie Powers and her allies.

True, not exactly suitcase sized; but 79cm x 28cm and 23kg is certainly small enough to be toted around on a workman's hand truck or mail carrier's cart, let alone in the trunk of a car, parked in a car-park in the middle of some other high-pop density area (University, city center, amusement park, etc.). A reasonably strong person could carry it under one arm . . .

600 rem at 400m, so probably still 10 or 20 rem at 700m (~half-mile). Basically anything above 100 rem and you are going to get very sick and with increasing levels of fatalities (estimated at 10% at 100 to 200 rem; est at 60% fatality at 400-600rem). Moreover, even if you only get exposed to 50 or 60 rem, and don't die, you will NOT be a happy camper, may never be able to reproduce, and may well die of cancer much earlier than otherwise.

I would say that: picking the right spot, one of these babies could be used to cause considerable havoc by a malicious terrorist element. To be objective: it is true that many of the most high-pop-density contexts (e.g., a Manhattan type situation, or a basement car-park of a skyscraper, or a multi-level parking garage of a shopping mall, etc.) are also going to have structural features (namely buildings and floors made of concrete and steel) that will severely limit the effects of both the blast and the radiation exposure . . .

But set off one of these babies inside a stadium with a rock concert, football game, fireworks display, etc., and it seems to me you could EASILY kill 50 to 60,000 people, depending on the popularity of the spectacle in question.

Michigan Stadium e.g., holds ~108,000 to 111,000 people (111 with bands, teams, media, etc.).

Lesse, a football field is maybe 150 total length (including the endzones, etc.) add maybe 100 meters on each end for the seats . . . we're talkin' a concentrated target that is 350 to 450m diameter with up to 111,000 innocent souls just trying to have a good time inside. Detonate a  device comparable to the W54 warhead from a Davy Crockett inside the perimeter of the open interior part of "The Big House" and my guess is you'd kill at least half the spectators, maybe most of them.

. . . . Yeah, preventing THAT would not be worth waterboarding some terrorist scumbag . . .

Now, what was that about "everyone should be able to have their very own nuclear program?"

Risky even for the user: sounds ideal for a suicide bomber . . .