As far as the nuclear ICBM's go, the largest threat isn't targeting a city, but targeting an area. ICBM's of sufficient size, detonated above their target in the atmosphere can act as an EMP, except in massive ranges, depending on their altitude. However, the US already is developing counter measures for these threats. These are the two methods I've heard of. One method that could be implemented any day now is a laser satellite system that can deactivate ICBM's aiming at our soil from space. The main reason why it hasn't been implemented is because it has been speculated to at the very least intimidate allies and enemies, because the US would have a virtually "impenetrable shield" along all of it's borders. The other method I've heard that the department of defense is developing is basically many small projectiles that will send themselves at warheads, detonating them before they reach their target, but I don't think this was meant to be used for nuclear ICBM's for the EMP reason...

I wasn't talking about ICBMs. I'm talking about 1 guy, perhaps part of a larger terrorist organization, who got a-hold of one the nuclear warheads the Soviets misplaced during their break-up, and detonating it in the middle of a major city, perhaps using a truck or van to disguise it.

When someone else mentioned it, I figured I'd mention the risks and counter-threats I know of. I myself am significantly less concerned about a suicide bomber/car bombing with a nuclear warhead, but figured I'd give my two cents about what someone said for ICBM's.

That's fine. I've also heard of a countermeasure for ICBMs that involves 2 planes and a net. Sounds too comical to be true, but I don't know.

Yeah... no, the chances of that happening are so ridiculously slim as to be considered impossible. Warheads, by the way, are *big* and *heavy*. You can't exactly chuck one into the back of a pickup truck.