Posted on 10/30/2001 4:17:08 PM PST by DrCarl
I'm thinking it will be in the west for two reasons:
* Moving from the Mexican border across the whole US gives a greater chance of getting caught.
* An explopsion in the west would spread radiation across a larger area of the US.
So look at the upside. Even if a dirty bomb is set off on the West Coast as early as tonight, that still gives all the folks East of the Mississippi River more than enough time to celebrate Halloween tomorrow night before the radioactivity reaches us.
If all those drugs can come across our border with Mexico, nuclear waste material cann come across without with or without NAFTA too.
Undoubtably in one of Blue Nation's failed megalopolises - and probably downtown during the business day or during rush hour.
That's easy to deduce strategically and tactically. A "Nasser nuke" (highly-radioactive junk surrounding conventional explosives to scatter it - an idea Germans were developing for Nasser) would not kill many if the target was, say, Saxapahaw, North Carolina. Only a place with lots of "people who matter" in a small area would create real emergency-response hassles - and preferably one very dependent on bridges and tunnels. And only by attacking some downtown business district with it would the permanently-uninhabitable real estate be any big loss; neither Saxapahaw nor Harlem would matter to the grandees of Blue Nation.
Houston has Bush Intercontinental Airport, plus the Ship Channel, and lots of industry (I'm no Houston expert, but I believe it's the third or fourth most populous city in the U.S.)
Look at Arab doctors in this country.
SEND ALL MOSLEMS OUT OF THIS COUNTRY BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE!!!!
That's about it. You will be advised about your level of exposure and if you need to take potassium iodide, the government has large stocks of PI. Do not take PI without being advised to do so.
I think the word nuclear fools people. Think of it as a... I don't know... yogurt bomb instead. Wrapped around conventional explosives, the yogurt splatters when it is detonated. People nearby get a whole bunch on them, which is bad. But it can be washed off somewhat, but look for these folks to have high rates of cancer cases coming up.
Instant deaths will not be the big concern with this type of weapon. Contamination of buildings and water will however. "Only" dozens or hundreds of people may actually die in this attack originally, but a certain radius around the impact point will most likely have to be abandoned for years and years until the radiation mess can be cleaned up.
If the bomb is large enough and placed say next to the capital, our government will have to move out of D.C. for many years. If it's placed in an urban section of NY, LA, Chicago it would be devastating financially more than in casualty numbers. Think of the impact WTC has had on our economy, then picture it if every office building in a 3 mile radius of WTC had to be condemned for 5-10 years.
This only protects against the uptake of radio-active iodine.
One is a nuclear weapon in which the nuclear explosion is designed not to fully "burn" or spend all of the nuclear material. This leads to fallout that contains unspent radio active particles. These particles will typically have the half life of the material from which they are made. The effect of a weapon like this is to leave the area surrounding the blast contaminated. Contrast this to a neutron bomb which is very clean by comparison, emits a lot of radiation but leaves an area that can be re occupied in about two weeks.
The other dirty bomb is not a nuclear bomb at all. It is just radioactive material that is blown up by conventional weapons. The effect of this is a much smaller area is contaminated. It is un likely that a blast could be large enough to contaminate millions or hundreds of thousands. If wind conditions were right and the blast was large enough then the contamination could extend to thousands, and of course if it were detonated in a crowded city then thousands would be affected. The bigger danger is the spreading of the material via wind or water which would make containment and clean up tougher.
This is an exageration. At best, a few thousand would die from one incident.
So what's the downside of this bomb?
I do believe that there is some confusion over the terms. As I have heard it, a dirty bomb is a nuke that leaves a lot of radioactive material laying around. A Radiological Bomb is what you seem to be referencing. It is the radioactive material bomb despersed with converntion explosives.
Richard W.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.