I was taking a shower when this hit me:

The emergence of drones/remote-driven vehicles effectively bypass conventional nuclear deterrents. Say I'm the US, and I want to hit Russia before they could hit back. What do I do? Build self-driven SUVs with Russian license plates, darken the windows, and fit the biggest nuclear warhead in the back that is practically possible. Maybe put a dummy in the driver's seat so it's not that apparent that my car is remote-driven. Drive up to a big city/nuclear launch site, and boom.
I don't even know how could a nation protect itself from something like that.

Thoughts on this?

Well, intelligence agencies usually have this thing covered. It might happen, it might not. I wouldn't go mad with worry about it, if I were you.

edit: I also think that if the US got into a tiff with Russia (WW3), we'd see worse bombs than your typical nuclear bomb. Thermonuclear (hydrogen) bombs would be the go-to. I don't think we could even imagine how horrible it would be.

They can eliminate life in a city while keeping most of the infrastructure intact. Unlike a Nuke, which has too many downsides to it to practically use and invad a country for resources.

Hydrogen bombs are still 'technically' nukes. WW3 aside, I think that (if we're going to worry), we should worry about non-state actors when it comes to the use of nukes. States are very reluctant to use nukes, since they're able to rationalise that if they use one, it's going to come back to bite them. For states to use them, they'd have to be in some existential crisis, with no other resorts. Even then, nobody wins.

Non-state actors, on the other hand, don't have this problem. Their actions are guided by ideaology, rather than rationality. This is why them having nuclear (or biological....) weapons is a much bigger problem. Mutually assured destruction doesn't deter terrorists.

but you have to remember that Russia and the USA is held by the Geneva conventions which prohibit any sort of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapon of mass destruction from being used. If you do happen to use one you could have the whole word against you in a single week (if not less), all aiming their nukes at you. Basically with this, the original target will be demolished from the prohibited weapons that were used against them (assuming they were used effectively which the USA nor Russia have any problem doing) and the original attacker will be demolished by a hail of nukes, ultimately destroying all life in the area. the only winners are those that abide by the Geneva Conventions which is why I think there hasn't been a nuclear fall out yet.

Looking at history. It's obvious someone isn't going to follow the rules and something is going to slip. As soon as that happens, a nuclear war is possible. Now, as to the actual topic. You'd need a pretty good SUV to carry a nuclear warhead that could do some damage.

Who's to say a militant group that doesn't really represent a country, like Al-Qaeda, get a nuclear weapon. Not only will they not follow the Geneva Convention, but there will also not be a specific country to "point your nukes at". This is in response to ilikepie56

The real question is... Why would you want to do that?

I said why before. They're violent, extremist non-state actors who don't play by da rulz. They're operating on a death-oriented ideology, rather than self-preservation and logic. That's why we worry about terrorists with nuclear capabilities.

States, on the other hand, are the ones that wrote the playbook. If country A drops a nuke on country B, then everybody else turns on B and A and B end up dead. Mutually assured destruction.

tldr; it's the crazy people with nukes that you should worry about, not other countries.

well put i hadn't considered that at all, i guess there is no way of stopping it if a group were to get the necessary supplies