Weezy
Diaper Dandy
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 4,480
- Likes
- 1,265
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.
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.
Again, if you blow it up high enough, with wind, it could be a lot more devastating. Especially, in a very population/economically dense place like NYC.
Depends on what material is used, uranium wouldn't do well. Strontium-90 maybe?
There's plenty of radioactive material out there, if dirty bombs were effective in causing mass destruction and death, one would have been used somewhere by now. One hasn't been used because even the terrorist know that the use of a radioactive weapon of an kind would be a trigger for us or Russia to take the gloves off. The reward isn't worth the risk.
What I outlined above would have been a best case scenario for them; which I have no confidence they could pull off nowadays. Obviously, uranium wouldn't be the best choice. Plenty of nuclear and hospital radioactive waste that admit beta particles and gamma rays.
From the article, I highly doubt that they weaponized the supposed stolen uranium (unless they had outside help).
I probably wouldn't have started a war over a suspicion.
Then apparently you wouldn't trust any of your advisers; not the sign of a very good leader...
I believe that there might have been WMDs there before, but we gave him so much notice that he had plenty of time to have his muslim buddies take 'em and hide 'em. Besides, the WMD in Iraq was the 9mm pistol anyway. I'd still have turned him loose when Nick Berg's head was sawed off.... Some people do not deserve a democracy.