Article

2007-08-11 Home Front: WoT

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Phil_B 2007-08-11 05:48|| || Front Page|| [11129 views ] Top
File under: al-Qaeda

#1 Why go to all that trouble of setting off a "dirty bomb?" All you need to paralyze NYC is heavy rain.

Posted by doc 2007-08-11 08:32|| 2007-08-11 08:32|| Front Page Top

#2 "Panic." You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Posted by Mike 2007-08-11 09:22|| 2007-08-11 09:22|| Front Page Top

#3 I like to point out that dirty bombs are far more publicity than actual weapon. They have inherent technical problems that make them very difficult to effectively contaminate a wide area.

To start with, the isotope selected has to be widely available, *and* it has to be of a lighter element, *and* it has to have a reasonably long half life *and* it has to be of a type easily consumed by people who will get sick from it.

That means that it has to work both chemically, and emit the right kind of radiation.

First you have to collect it, and in such a way that you don't contaminate yourself yet get enough to contaminate a large area--no mean feat.

It has to be light enough so that when blown into the air by high explosives that it doesn't just fall right down again contaminating just a few dozen relatively easy to clean up square feet.

Third, if it has a short half life, it will be gone either before you can blow it up on target, or it just won't last. And that is important, because of the publicity factor.

After you would blow up such a bomb, you have to get somebody on site with Geiger counters to both verify the radiation *and* who will blab it to the media *and* to a media that will blab it to the public. Unless you create a public panic, it doesn't work. Otherwise the government can discreetly clean it up and not make a fuss.

The problems just get worse and worse. If the isotope is too light, it wafts away with the next breeze; too heavy and it just sits there, to be washed away with the next rain. Most of the contamination would be on people's shoes, which means that it is just as likely to get in them as typical shoe dust--not likely in any quantity.

If the isotope isn't readily absorbed by people and retained in the body, it just passes through, most likely with minimal harm.

It just goes on and on. This is not to say that it can't be done, just that the odds of a typical dirt ball putting an effective dirty bomb together is pitifully small.

Posted by Anonymoose 2007-08-11 09:31|| 2007-08-11 09:31|| Front Page Top

#4 It is false 99 times out of 100. It really isn't worth reading because it is generally a waste of everyone's time to consider what they publish. Sure, every once in a while they publish something that turns out to be true but I toss that in the coincidence bin. A hundred monkeys trying at random will eventually produce a readable sentence.

Posted by crosspatch 2007-08-11 13:01|| 2007-08-11 13:01|| Front Page Top

#5 Also keep in mind that hype in the media about "dirty bombs" only serves to INCREASE their effectiveness. Dirty bombs are practically harmless. They won't kill very many people and the radiation they release would not be harmful. It's just that they WOULD release measurable amounts of radiation and people are so terror stricken of ANY amount of radioactivity that it would require billions to decontaminate areas of levels or radiation that aren't harmful.

A dirty bomb is a psychological panic weapon simply designed to scare people. Media reports like this just serve to increase the impact of them.

Posted by crosspatch 2007-08-11 13:06|| 2007-08-11 13:06|| Front Page Top

#6 #3 Anonymoose & #5 Crosspatch,

We live in a society that thinks it'll get cancer from smelling someone else's cigarette or that grilling a steak will cause polar bears to drown.

People like John Edwards have grown rich off the scientific ignorance of (some) Americans.

"Dirty" bombs would be 100 times more effective than the DC Sniper even if they
resulted in zero deaths.

Posted by JDB 2007-08-11 13:14|| 2007-08-11 13:14|| Front Page Top

#7 I'm in NYC ... no panic here. Drink up!

Posted by doc 2007-08-11 13:55|| 2007-08-11 13:55|| Front Page Top

#8 #7 I'm in NYC ... no panic here.
Posted by doc

Then why are so many people running...

;-)

Posted by Elmigum Gonque3914 2007-08-11 14:29|| 2007-08-11 14:29|| Front Page Top

#9 Cause that is what we do...

Posted by A Jogger 2007-08-11 14:34|| 2007-08-11 14:34|| Front Page Top

#10 Great analysis, 'moose. I'd like to see who wants to sacrifice themselves grinding up a chunk of radioisotope into particles fine enough to disperse properly. Unless they're wearing a lead-lined clean room "space suit" they would probably be the only casualty the bomb ever caused.

I'll repeat, hit us with a dirty bomb and we should retaliate by dusting Medina, on short or no notice, with the exact same isotopein much larger quantitiesand right before the haj. Hit us with another one after that and both Medina and Mecca get dusted right before every haj for the next five years. Same goes for anthrax or any other biological attack. Decontaminating the shrines would cost untold billions of dollars.

Screwing with the haj is the one sure way to reach out and touch around 1,000,000 Muslims all at once. If they suddenly realized that their life-long dreamnot to mention a huge chunk of personal earningsall went down the toilet because some terrorist wingnut decided to mess with America, they just might go home and strangle the local radical imam. Most Muslims only get one chance to make a pilgrimage to the shrines. Ruining that once-in-a-lifetime opportunity is a sure-fire way of making Islam aware of how their constant terrorism comes with a price tag attached.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-08-11 15:15|| 2007-08-11 15:15|| Front Page Top

#11 Zenster! How diabolical!

I read in the Scientific American a few years back that the deaths from panic would far outweigh the deaths from radiation. But 'Moose's analysis is more compelling about the hazard than the article!

I gave it up when the the editors could hardly allow any article to be printed without Bush- bashing.

Posted by Bobby 2007-08-11 16:03|| 2007-08-11 16:03|| Front Page Top

#12 Zenster! How diabolical!

Thank you. I came up with the idea when I first arrived here at Rantburg and began examining what measures could possibly consitute a functional deterrent to terrorism. I still welcome any and all suggestions. If Islam hopes to survive, it'd damn well better hope we figure something like this out because the alternative doesn't involve their further participation.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-08-11 16:18|| 2007-08-11 16:18|| Front Page Top

#13 One of the greatest tools against dirty bombs are fire trucks : firemen in their breathers wash the area down with fire hoses. Than, and a good rain storm would reduce the true effectiveness of a dirty bomb to about zero - the panic effectiveness due to the modern phobia about anything remote dangerous would kill hundreds if not thousands.

Posted by Shieldwolf 2007-08-11 16:49|| 2007-08-11 16:49|| Front Page Top

22:17 Redneck Jim
22:05 Ptah
21:41 lotp
21:34 Abdominal Snowman
21:32 Gary and the Samoyeds
21:29 Zenster
21:24 Red Dawg
21:22 Procopius2k
21:19 Red Dawg
21:08 lotp
20:52 GK
20:41 Bright Pebbles
20:41 Zhang Fei
20:37 Red Dawg
20:36 3dc
20:34 Red Dawg
20:20 smn
20:16 Pancho Jamble1384
20:08 Mullah Of Hoof And Mouth Disorders
20:04 wxjames
19:57 rhodesiafever
19:38 Silentbrick
19:25 Mark Z
19:02 Deacon Blues