MovieChat Forums > Dirty War (2005) Discussion > 'Dirty bombs' are actually a myth and a ...

'Dirty bombs' are actually a myth and a farce


Fox News did a piece on them a while back, and they're impossible for the following reasons:
* Sufficiently radioactive material is too radioactive to safely handle outside of a lab...and if you can afford to build such a lab, you can afford to build a real nuke
* The dispersal radius is limited by the conventional explosive yield, meaning the farther you want to go, the more explosives you'd need and the larger the bomb gets...and I think we'd all notice something the size of a MOAB in the middle of a park

reply

As much as I more or less agree with you in that dirty bombs are impossible to make and use, your arguments are refutable:

"Sufficiently radioactive material is too radioactive to safely handle outside of a lab...and if you can afford to build such a lab, you can afford to build a real nuke"

The movie showed that they did have a lab with suits and everything. A really deep basement with enough lead and radon (like the ones in London) could work really well.

"The dispersal radius is limited by the conventional explosive yield, meaning the farther you want to go, the more explosives you'd need and the larger the bomb gets...and I think we'd all notice something the size of a MOAB in the middle of a park"

The terrorists in the movie corrected that by using a van packed full with explosives. That's enough to be as powerful as a MOAB.

My reasoning for dirty bombs as facical is because the concept and the effects of the dirty bomb is rip from what happened at Chernobyl. The concept of a dirty bomb is just a theory stemming from that blew out of porportion out of 9/11.
Besides, tts a lot easier to strap a bomb to ur chest, pack a van full of expolsives, or crash a plane into a crowded place rather than $#%$% with radiation.

reply

Yah Dirty Bombs are pointed out as myths in The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear (2004) (TV).

Even look what it says at wikipedia.org
"hough an RDD is designed to disperse radioactive material over a large area, the conventional explosive would likely have more immediate lethal effect than the radioactive material. At levels created from most probable sources, not enough radiation would be present to cause severe illness or death. A test explosion and subsequent calculations done by the Department of Energy found that assuming nothing is done to clean up the affected area and everyone stays in the affected area for 1 year, the radiation exposure would be "fairly high".

For this reason, a dirty bomb is not a weapon of mass destruction. Its purpose would presumably be to create psychological, not physical, harm through mass panic and terror. Additionally, decontamination of the affected area might require considerable time and expense, rendering affected areas unusable, and causing extensive economic damage."

"Everybody be cool... you be cool" George Clooney as Seth Gecko in From Dusk Till Dawn

reply

I see the points of the actual physical damage of the "dirty bombs". But you mentioned it would NOT be a WMD? Wrong, fear itself is a WMD and if one of these went off in England or even America, or anywhere for that matter, it would cause WORLD wide panic. This in itself would be a weapon, and the destruction would be MASSive. So it IS a WMD no matter how you look at it.... America ITSELF is a WMD, causing fear in the rest of the world AS WELL as in its own people, lol. You think 19 FOREIGNERS pulled off 911 alone? Or with only the help of bin Laden? LOL come on now, dont be ignorant.

FACTS!

reply

[deleted]

Dirty Bombs are not WMD's. They're RDD's meant not to cause massive destruction, but to throw out tons of radioactive particles over a location. The aim is cause terror and panic.

don't confuse the two

reply

RDD's are not a form of WMD however they can do a lot more damage than causing terror and panic depending on the radioactive element dispersed with the explosion. Cesium 137 is one of those elements that can have long term health consequences for the public and can very well cause death. And as for those above who made a reference to the explosion at chernobyl in the 1980's people DID die from the radiation released from chernobyl, even today there is still a 100 mile radius from the plant that has been rendered permanently uninhabitable. Do not underestimate the potential for an RDD to cause damage, if detonated in a heavily populated area during the right weather conditions and time of day, it can do a lot of damage both short and longterm. the point of this film is not to display a Radiation dispersal device as one as powerful as a nuclear bomb but to show that more needs to be done in preparation against such an attack. It is easier to get ahold of radioactive materials that can cause death and long term health problems and use conventional means to blow them up than obtaining a sufficient amount of fissile material and fashion a working nuclear weapon. Keep that in mind.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

The source you cite is Fox News......even though your post is before Faux lost all credibilty, the person who posted equating a "dirty bomb" with Chernobyl is far more accurate.

"Stalker?"
"Yup, bigtime"

reply

The value of a "dirty bomb" isn't its practical first-order effects (ie, radiation poisoning) but fear and delays in responding to the explosion.

In this film, the firemen are held back from responding to fires started by the initial explosion (which rages on unchecked) and thousands of people are stuck in no man's land waiting for decontamination.

And none of this includes the clusterfscks that would go on for probably a decade or more in trying to figure out how to clean up the immediate area, the zillions of lawsuits and insurance claims that would happen, etc. Just look at post-9/11 NYC -- I think people are STILL bickering about damages from that, and it's nearly 15 years later.

Even if a dirty bomb wasn't a practical risk for widespread contamination, you know it would be a monumental mess afterwards, much more so than a generic high explosive bombing.

reply