Author Topic: Dirty Bomber?  (Read 1024 times)

Offline blur

  • Parolee
  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 154
Dirty Bomber?
« Reply #30 on: June 11, 2002, 07:24:44 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Mickey1992
I can only conclude that because they waited a month to tell us of this that they are actively looking for more individuals?


The government holds this information like a trump card. Then when their competency starts to come under increasing scrutiny, they play it!

Incidentally, does anyone remember soon after 9/11 government spokespeople started talking about anthrax and several weeks later we had anthrax laced letters?

And how recently there’s been talk of dirty bombs and then guess what?

How convenient!

Honestly, I believe the US government shovels more propaganda our way than it does to foreign governments.
 :rolleyes:

Offline Pyton

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 9
Dirty Bomber?
« Reply #31 on: June 11, 2002, 08:07:43 AM »
Quote

Man, either you are very optimistic, or you dont know that much about nuclear material.

Worst case scenario, terrorist makes dirty bomb with enriched uranium or plutonium. Effect: Abandon city for next ten thousand years. But I guess one could say it would slow commerce badly...oh...and there is no clean up with those.


And that comment showed that you know nothing about nuclear material.

First of all dirty bomb with enriched uranium is as dangerous as as dirty bomb with iron. Even enriched uranium's radiation is so miniscule that it's barely noticable. You get much more extra radiation from flying over the Atlantic than from sitting atop of three tons of enriched uranium for the same time. What makes enriched uranium dangerous is that in nuclear reaction it changes to other elements that are much more radioactive, however you will not get that effect without nuclear explosion.

Even in the worst case scenario the damage and radiation is concentrated within few blocks. With conventional explosives there is no high-rising fireball or massive vaporization that makes nuclear bomb's fallout spread so wide not to mention that the radioactive particles stay big enough that they won't get very far (again the lack of vaporization).

Unless the bomb-builder would get a massive amount (over a ton) of spent reactor fuel on his hands the radioactivity caused by the bomb would not get even as high as it was in Kiev after Chernobyl - even at the explosion site - and last time I checked people were still living there. Dirty bomb is mostly psychological weapon because the panic it would cause would not be in any scale with the actual danger (above post is a good example). Mostly this is due the overreaction in people and media to anything that is connected to radioactivity.

Offline Tuomio

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 523
Dirty Bomber?
« Reply #32 on: June 11, 2002, 09:07:37 AM »
What it takes to build a dirty bomb that makes a difference in the means of radiation (thats what youre scared right?).

1. Material thats highly radioactive (hafing time of few days) and vaporizes in lets say, 1000c temperature.

(There aint none.)

2.Tons of TNT (i really mean 1000:s of kg:s).

3.Successifull detonation, which would not just say Boom, but would vaporize all that (non-existent) radioactive material, not just throw it few blocks away.  The vaporized material would be required to form a cloud high in the skies, which would then rain allover the city.



It would be easier to buil a regular nuclear bomb, or simply put that TNT allover the country in the bases of skyscrapers. Each one would come down with 100 Kg:s.:eek:

Offline AKSWulfe

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3812
Dirty Bomber?
« Reply #33 on: June 11, 2002, 09:11:31 AM »
Sikboy, we don't know whether Iraq has Nukes or not. They have, or were trying to, purchase material to make "nuclear reactors" or something to that effect... when they don't even need a nuclear power station.

Russia may not have sold nukes, but I remember hearing that they lost several briefcase nukes a while back. And when their government changed who knows what got lost, or "misplaced" in the shuffle.

I never said anything about all Mid East countries having nukes, I asked... of course, if you continue to take quotes out of context then it's a moot point because you will be arguing with something I didn't even say.
-SW

Offline Sikboy

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6702
Dirty Bomber?
« Reply #34 on: June 11, 2002, 09:30:41 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by AKSWulfe
Sikboy, we don't know whether Iraq has Nukes or not. They have, or were trying to, purchase material to make "nuclear reactors" or something to that effect... when they don't even need a nuclear power station.

Yes, they have in the past, and most likely still have today a nuclear weapons program.


Quote

Russia may not have sold nukes, but I remember hearing that they lost several briefcase nukes a while back. And when their government changed who knows what got lost, or "misplaced" in the shuffle.

I remember this, but IIRC there was never any substantial evidence to support the report.
Quote

I never said anything about all Mid East countries having nukes, I asked... of course, if you continue to take quotes out of context then it's a moot point because you will be arguing with something I didn't even say.
 


I'm not taking the quote out of context. Our whole sidebar here is on how easy it is to get a functioning nuclear warhead. Your statement:

Quote

How many mid east countries have nukes they didn't purchase off the black market anyway?

implies that countries do have nukes that they purchased off the black market, when in fact there is no evidence that any exist. My statement is contextual because it helps to show how rare nuclear warheads are (in a proliferation sense, not a sheer number sense). I have not taken anything out of context, and I continue to argue only that it is very hard to get a nuclear warhead.


However, I do agree, and agree strongly that the threat of "loose nukes" from Russia is very real. The US government is going to great lenghts to help fight this potential problem. Here's a good summary of what we are doing. However, it's not as if anyone with a few million dollars lying around can just go out and buy one on the black market, as you were suggesting.

-Sikboy
You: Blah Blah Blah
Me: Meh, whatever.

Offline Sikboy

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6702
Dirty Bomber?
« Reply #35 on: June 11, 2002, 09:44:00 AM »
You: Blah Blah Blah
Me: Meh, whatever.

Offline Eagler

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18837
Dirty Bomber?
« Reply #36 on: June 11, 2002, 09:51:10 AM »
I do believe with the right amount of cash, whoever can get whatever they want or need as the Almighty $$$ is somes only Savior in this world today.
Extremists have already put one together before.

Read this article this morning:
Patrick Goodenough, CNSNews.com
Tuesday, June 11, 2002
Terrorists armed with "dirty bombs" might not be able to cause the devastation of a World Trade Center collapse, but they could trigger unprecedented panic, at enormous economic cost.
Experts with Jane's, the defense publication group, say the detonation of a "dirty bomb" -- conventional explosives packed with highly radioactive material -- in an urban area could have "catastrophic" results.

An entire suburb of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, had to be evacuated in the early 1990s because of a radiation leak from a broken X-ray tube, according to a Jane's Sentinel Security Assessment report.

"A similar catastrophe in New York, London, Paris or Berlin could have major financial repercussions as well as a high human cost," it said.

"The longer-term effects could leave municipal areas uninhabitable for years and give rise to cancers and hereditary defects."

The Pentagon announced Monday that a suspected terrorist, Abdullah al-Mujahir, was arrested last month as he returned to the U.S. after receiving explosive training from Osama bin Laden's group.

Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz said the man, who used to be known as Jose Padilla, was tasked to look for targets in the U.S. for a possible "dirty bomb" attack.

Jane's assessment of the potential effects of a "dirty bomb" terrorist strike echoes that of the global nuclear watchdog, International Atomic Energy Agency.

The IAEA's Abel Gonzales also sees the most serious implications being psychological and economic, rather than actual loss of life.

Experts generally cite another incident in Brazil when discussing the potential repercussions of a terrorist "dirty bomb" attack.

In 1987, scrap metal thieves stole a capsule of highly-radioactive cesium-137 from an abandoned clinic in the city of Goiania, and handed pieces of it to associates around the city to sell.

Exposure to the radiation contaminated 249 people and cost four lives. Eighty-five houses had to be destroyed, and 125,000 drums of contaminated clothing and other items were collected. More than 110,000 people had to be monitored for possible exposure over the months that followed.

"A dirty bomb exploded in a major city could produce similar effects [to the Goiania incident]," says analyst S. Gopal of the South Asia Analysis Group (SAAG) in India. "While the death toll may not be high, the impact would be great with general panic and demoralization."

In the view of Jane's Terrorism and Security Monitor, "the mere threat of using a radiological weapon is a potent terrorist tactic, particularly in an urban center, given the likely terror induced by anything nuclear."

Similarly, Brig. Gurmeet Kanwal, an Indian Army nuclear issues analyst, sees the potential result as the creation of "a fear psychosis that will add to the paranoia that has already got a deep hold over ordinary people the world over after the September 11 attacks."

And he adds that, depending on the radioactive ingredient used, the device could continue to spread radiation for many years.

Pakistan Concerns

According to the Pentagon, al-Qaeda suspect Abdullah al-Muhajir was arrested on his return from Pakistan.

Security analysts in South Asia and elsewhere point to Pakistan as a key potential source for the type of radioactive material necessary to make an effective "dirty bomb," also known as a radiological dispersal device.

Gopal argues that Pakistan's own nuclear program was born out of nuclear espionage and smuggling.

"It is therefore not improbable that some Pakistani official or scientist with sympathies for the [Islamic] fundamentalists would be tempted to supply nuclear technology or material."

The Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security has reported that it's not known whether all of the nuclear-grade material in Pakistan's possession has been used in actual nuclear weapons.

There is a possibility, it says, that some remains unused and unless properly secured, could be vulnerable to theft by those motivated either by profit or ideology.

Bin Laden is strongly suspected of wanting to acquire non-conventional weaponry.

Last October, a leading Indian newspaper reported that customs officials earlier in 2001 confiscated ten packages of unspecified radioactive material on the Kazakhstan-Uzbekistan border. The report said they were bound southward for Quetta in Pakistan, and al-Qaeda was suspected to be the intended recipient.

Dr. Rajesh Kumar Mishra, another SAAG analyst, recalls that testimony during the trial of terrorists involved in the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in East Africa pointed to efforts by al-Qaeda to acquire radioactive material as early in 1993.

Sudanese witness Jamal Ahmet Al-Fadl, a former close bin Laden aide, told the Manhattan court he had been approached back then by an al-Qaeda representative about the possibility of buying uranium from Sudan. Al-Fadl could not confirm whether the material had actually been bought.

Common Sources

But the major concern about "dirty bombs" is that they do not necessarily need highly-sensitive materials like enriched uranium or plutonium.

According to the IAEA, the required material could be stolen from low-security institutions like hospitals, laboratories or universities.

"The number of radioactive sources around the world is vast," it says, and include substances used in cancer radiotherapy treatment, for food preservation and in industry, for example for checking structural quality.

"Security of radioactive materials has traditionally been relatively light," says the IAEA's Gonzalez.

"An undetermined number of radioactive sources have become orphaned of regulatory control and their location is unknown."

According to a Stimson Center report, the most prominent case of nuclear terrorism occurred in 1995, when Chechen separatists marked the first anniversary of the beginning of their conflict with Russia by placing a "dirty bomb" in a popular Moscow park.

The device, which contained cesium-137 -- the same isotope that triggered the 1987 contamination panic in Brazil -- was recovered before detonation and rendered harmless.

Copyright CNSNews.com
"Masters of the Air" Scenario - JG27


Intel Core i7-13700KF | GIGABYTE Z790 AORUS Elite AX | 64GB G.Skill DDR5 | 16GB GIGABYTE RTX 4070 Ti Super | 850 watt ps | pimax Crystal Light | Warthog stick | TM1600 throttle | VKB Mk.V Rudder

Offline AKSWulfe

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3812
Dirty Bomber?
« Reply #37 on: June 11, 2002, 09:52:20 AM »
Well I wasn't suggesting the black market, I was thinking a little money to the right people would get yourself a nuke.

Whether this would be a 1 day "wham bam thankya mam" kinda deal, or several years and a lotta money.. I dunno.

Aren't U.N. inspectors still not allowed into Iraq? There were a bunch of facilities closed off that UN inspectors couldn't enter until later... who knows what was in there- you are right about chem & bio weapons... so maybe that's all they had in those areas... but again, no one really knows except Sadam. We really don't know much about Iraq.

I heard, of course it could of been simply rumors, that there were a few countires in the mid-east that had purchased nukes off the black market.. or perhaps it was just that they were attempting too. I dunno, but the prospect that there could be nukes on the black market is pretty scary...

It's hard to get nukes from other countries, you're right.. very damn hard. Well, except Iraq *IF* they have any.. I'm sure Sadam would give OBL or any terrorist group a "helping hand" if they had the dough.

When I implied they could just go out and purchase one, I didn't mean it like going out to pick up a video game or something.. I meant more along the lines of... well to put this into a better perspective.. trying to purchase illegal/rare drugs in the states. It'd be quite difficult if you didn't know off the bat who to go to... but as time goes on and you search and dig... it's pretty much guaranteed you'll eventually come up with what you want.

I believe this could be the case here. Again, I'm not looking at this as a short term thing... it could be.. but I was thinking more like several years to acquire a nuke, then it would just be a matter of shipping it and getting shipping documents for the "cargo" etc...

Then again, I dunno... only our intelligence agencies really know.. and what they know we don't know... and they may not know it all. :)
-SW