A dirty nuke would not be nearly as bad...apparently more a weapon for fear creation. Nuclear radioactive material dissipates in ability to kill you as it is dispersed as in the manner of a dirty bomb. The dispersal over a wide area would lessen the amount of rads which emenated from the source prior to dispersal. Basically radioactive material en-masse is dangerous depending on the level of radiation, but spread out it is much less lethal. Unless they were able to get a lot of material (meaning tons) in the dirty bomb it would not pose a significant health risk (besides the explosion of course) for a short period of time. It would make several blocks/buildings unusable but is more a weapon for panic than one to cause damage. I need to find the article I read, but apparently you would be fairly safe living in the area in which it went off for 10 years before you would see real problamatic effects, which would occur in the form of cancer and/or birth defects. I will post if I find it.
However, to use a radiological weapon is to pass the NBC threshold, requiring full NBC retaliatory measures by the US.
But where would we nuke?
Certainly Iran is a prime candidate and Syria. If NK acts up in the process, then there.
All would be very hazardous but I'm beginning to feel it's doable in the current context.
First, look at the old Aussie kitten tests WRT dirt effect.
Second, consider that the core of these devices may be other than conventional.
Your posts are very telling, who are you?