I have seldom seen such nonsense regarding a dirty bomb. Depending upon its composition you could render downtown DC uninhabitable for decades but I suppose that’s why when the Brits used islands off the coast of Scotland to test biological agents they rendered those islands unfit for humans even after sixty years. But we are told this is the equivalent of turning on an x ray machine. Right.

A dirty bomb is not a biological agent. It’s simply and explosive design to spread radioactive material.

Yes, people will die. A dirty bomb is not a Good Thing ™, but it doesn’t come anywhere close to being a WMD.

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/dirty-bombs.html

The cloud of radiation from a nuclear bomb could spread tens to hundreds of square miles, whereas a dirty bomb’s radiation could be dispersed within a few blocks or miles of the explosion. A dirty bomb is not a “Weapon of Mass Destruction” but a “Weapon of Mass Disruption,” where contamination and anxiety are the terrorists’ major objectives.

Do your own research if you don’t believe the the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission is credible.

Depending on the rems released you could see people dying within hours, see that in a xray exam do you?

See what 600 rems of expouse wiull do for your day after an hour folks.

The article might have used Masada as a better example. When the zealots revolted they were crushed. They retreated to an insignificant outpost where they posed no threat. The Romans devoted enormous time and effort to display and demonstrate they would spare no expense to destroy their enemies totally. The lesson was taught and the world learned.

And the only statement I made about the cost of a successful attack was “Obviously a real nuke would have tragic results, but it would faaaaar from the end of civilization.” I stand by that statement.

That depends on the city. Imagine two such devices going off in New York and Los Angeles. You seem to be thinking only of the cost of the explosions, themselves, and the damage cleanup. Try thinking geometrically for a change (a challenge for you) and consider what other consequences come from, say, wiping out tens of thousands of people (at least), Wall Street, a few airports, and the compromising of what little port security there is.

Try the US Nuclear Regulatory Agency.

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/dirty-bombs.html

A dirty bomb is the equivalent of turning on an x-ray machine in a crowded room. It’s not a good thing, but any panic it causes will be worse than the actual event.

Honestly, there are some comments that I just don’t know how to respond to. And this is one of them.

If you’re losing sleep over dirty bombs, you should do a bit more research.

As long as a decontamination team responds in a reasonable amount of time, it would not even come close to being considered a catastrophic event. Tragic for a few people of course, but a mosquito bite compared to a real nuclear attack.

And I agree Regularon. It is a real possibility, and they are nuts enough to do it. Thanks.

All it takes is one ship in one of our ports with a nuke on a timer. Port cargo is only spot checked at a rate of 1%.

1. It’s a wee bit harder than you make it sound.
2. “All it takes” to do what? Obviously a real nuke (as opposed to a dirty bomb, which is mostly harmless) would have tragic results, but it would faaaaar from the end of civilization.

If this is really such a threat, wouldn’t it be just a tad bit cheaper to defend it by checking most, if not all, cargo rather than whatever pre-emptive approach you might be advocating?

All it takes is one ship in one of our ports with a nuke on a timer. Port cargo is only spot checked at a rate of 1%.

And the Iranian mullahs are nuts enough to do it.