Re:The $1.5T Nuclear Weapons Program You've Never Heard Of
by godelski on Friday November 17, 2023 @11:22AM
(#38305656)
> the efficacy of a dirty bomb
Surprisingly low. Dirty bombs are much more bang than they are sting. Definitely would leave people with cancer, but exceptionally short range and most would be the manufacturers. It's difficult to get enough radioactive material and distribute is in a large enough area with a conventional weapon (talking terrorist size not MOAB). There is a reason why despite a lot of missing USSR nuclear material no dirty bomb has ever been set off. Great tool of fear, but not as effective at harm. Not saying it is safe, but rather not as deadly as you might presume. It's also just significantly harder to manufacture, very high risk, expensive, and makes it far easier for you to get caught before detonating the device. That also contributes to their lack of use.
Surprisingly low. Dirty bombs are much more bang than they are sting. Definitely would leave people with cancer, but exceptionally short range and most would be the manufacturers. It's difficult to get enough radioactive material and distribute is in a large enough area with a conventional weapon (talking terrorist size not MOAB). There is a reason why despite a lot of missing USSR nuclear material no dirty bomb has ever been set off. Great tool of fear, but not as effective at harm. Not saying it is safe, but rather not as deadly as you might presume. It's also just significantly harder to manufacture, very high risk, expensive, and makes it far easier for you to get caught before detonating the device. That also contributes to their lack of use.