ISIS has a dirty bomb

#52
#52
MG1968 said:
That it's ironic that you'll call out others for believing what you call "propaganda" yet you yourself have no problem swallowing propaganda if it comes from your hero, Putin.
Click to expand...

I wasn't confirming Putin's propaganda. I was questioning the the authenticity of the US claims. Big difference.
 
#53
#53
SpaceCoastVol said:
And if your intelligence -at the time- told you that there were WMDs in the control of a madman, what would you have done? Nothing? Kind of like Bill Clinton and UBL?
Click to expand...

I would have gotten friendly with him. Used him to keep the other nuts in line.
 
#54
#54
PKT_VOL said:
One would think if they did have a dirty bomb, they wouldn't announce it to the world.

Second, if they did, extremely unlikely they developed it themselves, which raises the question of who would they have acquired it from? Who would be dumb enough to risk the full wrath of the USA?
Click to expand...

I think they absolutely would announce. They win by us over reacting and giving up our freedom voluntarily.
 
#55
#55
hog88 said:
I think they absolutely would announce. They win by us over reacting and giving up our freedom voluntarily.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the whole idea is to get you to believe in the threat. It's rather the point.

Of course, actual use of such a device even once would legitimize the threat of future attacks, whether they were truly capable of the acts or not.
 
#56
#56
hog88 said:
I think they absolutely would announce. They win by us over reacting and giving up our freedom voluntarily.
Click to expand...

That is like saying Al-Qaeda would tell us about 9-11 beforehand just to see take off our shoes at the airport.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#60
#60
PKT_VOL said:
That is like saying Al-Qaeda would tell us about 9-11 beforehand just to see take off our shoes at the airport.
Click to expand...

There was chatter. The difference between then and now is we know they can pull off an attack of that magnitude. Then we didn't believe them capable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#61
#61
PKT_VOL said:
Sure, but after they killed 3,000 innocent civilians. Same would be true with a dirty bomb (except more innocent civilians if they are competent).
Click to expand...

I highly doubt 300 in a dirty bomb attack.
 
#62
#62
How does one weaponize uranium? Outside of a nuclear weapon that is, which is obviously not in question. It's weakly radioactive. It is toxic, being a heavy metal, but I'm guessing that's one expensive, ineffective dirty bomb. I don't really care to Google this, so if somebody else wants to, I'd be glad to listen.
 
#63
#63
hog88 said:
There was chatter. The difference between then and now is we know they can pull off an attack of that magnitude. Then we didn't believe them capable.
Click to expand...

We intercepted "chatter". Very different.
 
#65
#65
Weezy said:
How does one weaponize uranium? Outside of a nuclear weapon that is, which is obviously not in question. It's weakly radioactive. It is toxic, being a heavy metal, but I'm guessing that's one expensive, ineffective dirty bomb. I don't really care to Google this, so if somebody else wants to, I'd be glad to listen.
Click to expand...

You have to use enriched uranium..highly enriched uranium which you are only getting from a lab and from someone who has made nukes before. If it isnt that its like you said..its weak sauce..but I am sure it can kill people still..or irritate them.
 
#66
#66
Weezy said:
How does one weaponize uranium? Outside of a nuclear weapon that is, which is obviously not in question. It's weakly radioactive. It is toxic, being a heavy metal, but I'm guessing that's one expensive, ineffective dirty bomb. I don't really care to Google this, so if somebody else wants to, I'd be glad to listen.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't be about death and destruction. It would be about fear and economic impact.

A large dirty bomb set off on Wall Street would shut the markets down for months for decon. The public would be scared ****less and the politicians win as we beg for them to take more of our liberty to keep us safe.
 
#68
#68
FLVOL_79 said:
You have to use enriched uranium..highly enriched uranium which you are only getting from a lab and from someone who has made nukes before. If it isnt that its like you said..its weak sauce..but I am sure it can kill people still..or irritate them.
Click to expand...

You mean like Iran has?
 
#69
#69
hog88 said:
A dirty bomb is not a nuclear explosion. It's just a bomb designed to spread nuclear contamination.
Click to expand...

I am well aware of what a dirty bomb is. That doesn't explain why you think a competent strike would only have 300 victims.
 
#70
#70
FLVOL_79 said:
You have to use enriched uranium..highly enriched uranium which you are only getting from a lab and from someone who has made nukes before. If it isnt that its like you said..its weak sauce..but I am sure it can kill people still..or irritate them.
Click to expand...

We're giving a lot of this country's current populace too much credit. If you link "terrorist", "explosion" and "radioactive" together in the same sentence I fear no small number of people will go full stupid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#71
#71
PKT_VOL said:
I am well aware of what a dirty bomb is. That doesn't explain why you think a competent strike would only have 300 victims.
Click to expand...

The initial explosion might if large enough and in the right place, just as in any explosion. The radiation part would kill very few as the area would be evacuated quickly.

If the goal was to kill large amounts of people with radiation, quietly spread it around in highly populated and congested areas for prolonged exposure.
 
#72
#72
FLVOL_79 said:
You have to use enriched uranium..highly enriched uranium which you are only getting from a lab and from someone who has made nukes before. If it isnt that its like you said..its weak sauce..but I am sure it can kill people still..or irritate them.
Click to expand...

Enriched uranium is less radioactive than unenriched. Enriched uranium is more fissile. It has value in a nuclear weapon or reactor. Not a dirty bomb. Uranium in a dirty bomb would be a threat as an alpha emitter (minor) and heavy metal (think lead), but I would think that's a ineffective and expensive use of it. The threat just sounds really dumb, but maybe I'm not getting it. Maybe they meant something else.
 
#74
#74
hog88 said:
The initial explosion might if large enough and in the right place, just as in any explosion. The radiation part would kill very few as the area would be evacuated quickly.

If the goal was to kill large amounts of people with radiation, quietly spread it around in highly populated and congested areas for prolonged exposure.
Click to expand...

It depends on how much uranium they have. If they have quite a bit, wait for a crowed time/area, have a big enough explosion (of the right kind), and do it on a day with wind, it could be potentially devastating.
 
#75
#75
PKT_VOL said:
It depends on how much uranium they have. If they have quite a bit, wait for a crowed time/area, have a big enough explosion (of the right kind), and do it on a day with wind, it could be potentially devastating.
Click to expand...

Devastating in the initial blast area but outside of say 1/2 mile at most, no.

The devastating effect is the public fear "radiation" and "terror" mixed together bring.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top