On dirty bombs

[unixronin]

We are continually threatened by our government with the spectre of a terrorist "dirty bomb" using cobalt-60 or some comparable radionucleide.  However, an actual examination of the problem¹ reveals that to yield a actual significantly dangerous level of contamination over any significant area, such a "dirty bomb" would have to contain sufficient cobalt-60 that the terrorists constructing and deploying it would be dead within a few minutes in its proximity.  This poses, shall we say, logistical problems in gathering and assembling such a mass of radioactive material.

The conclusion from this appears to be that such a "dirty bomb" is, indeed, largely a pure terror weapon, to be feared primarily because ... well ... people are afraid of it.

Discuss.

Some references:

• ABC News on dirty bombs
• A reporter for the Guardian tries to learn how to build a dirty bomb

[1]  The actual article was in New Scientist, if memory serves, but I can't find it online, so wandering upstairs to find the issue and verify that is somewhat moot.

Comments

[mrmeval.livejournal.com]

Eh, there's a survivalist writer that had a pretty scary scenario. It was initiated by one man with a fixation, a watch a good note taker and marginally proficient at building small explosive devices. Planted and timed correctly they could scare enough people to provoke an extreme response even if no one was killed.

He's written several books. The factual ones are pretty good.

It's by Kurt Saxon and he is the author of The Weaponeer which is one of his fact based books. A lot of old drawings of weapons and such.

I think I got that story in a newsletter or off of the old Fidonet.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Yup ... frankly, most of these threats are really all about scaring people into a disproportionate reaction to what is, ultimately, a relatively trivial threat.

[mrmeval.livejournal.com]

In such a hyper over driven environment as now I can see where Kurt's scenario would be highly effective.

I think if his had happened when the story was written we might be .. more robust at thwarting it without the lost of liberties.

[ithildae.livejournal.com]

Dirty bombs always seemed silly to me. The only thing that makes them even a possibility is the American public's irrational fear of radiation. If you have sufficient radioactive material to pose a threat, your best option is to keep it together, to pose a threat. Spreading it out, eliminates your threat. Just my $0.02

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

The Guardian article makes the point that a typical exposure to a plausibly-feasible cobalt-60 dirty bomb is going to increase your chance of dying of cancer from about 20% to about 21%. In the real world, that's in the statistical noise band.

[lonewolf545.livejournal.com]

That's the whole point of terror attacks - they don't have to be particularly dangerous to the population as a whole, they just have to be visible enough to SCARE the population. And, a dirty bomb would tie up more resources than a conventional bombing attack - everybody and everything going in and out would have to be decontaminated. New York City has police and fire departments larger than the entire militaries of some countries, but they were overwhelmed by 9/11/01 - imagine if, in addition to the immediate damage, EVERY PERSON who had been exposed to dust there had to be decontaminated (even worse than the existing health issues that are cropping up now)?

[bbullock.livejournal.com]

I'm pretty certain that it is currently un-American to offer logic in the face of governmental scare tactics.

[mrmeval.livejournal.com]

Government as an entity will fight for it's survival. We are a part of our government it's not some alien invasion force.

I've seen people make incremental changes that eventually added up to fundamental ones. That takes sobriety, dedication and rationality with some good statesmanship.

I suck at that.

Government as an entity will look for problems and try and solve them. If they do not the current people in it will be replaced by people who will.
That this can and does erode out liberties is something we'll have to work to prevent. Reversing such erosion takes much longer and is much more costly.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

The problem arises when the politicians realize it is more long-term politically profitable to do something quick, dirty, ineffective, but VISIBLE, that "feels good", than to take time to study the problem and do something that'll actually work. First, they get to grab the headlines while the issue's hot; and second, after the publicity dies down, the problem is still there to re-use again, and again, and again.

[mrmeval.livejournal.com]

I'm by no means apologizing for the polyticks. I do think we are culpable in who is there. If the amount of time people spent on some trivial pursuit were instead dedicated to politics it would be fun to watch. Just an hour a day.

It keeps the dictators away.