Replies

First Iraq would have needed have something radioactive to scatter. Yellowcake wouldn’t do the job, its percentage of U-235 is no different than natural ore.

And dirty bombs aren’t WMDs anyway. They are “area denial” devices, mostly aimed at civilians, designed to make an area unsafe to live or work in.

You scatter radioactive material around the area you want to keep people out of, playing on people’s fear of radiation. It won’t work to deter a military force.

And where do you think higher percentage material comes from? If these US hadn't gone into Iraq, what would have stopped Saddam from enriching everything he had, as much as he could?

A dirty bomb most certainly is a WMD. As is any kind of chemical or biological area denial device. Obviously yellowcake won't do the trick, but as I just said, Saddam was definitely smart enough to know he'd have to enrich it a bit before building such a bomb. Why try to scare people about low/fake radiation, when he could have easily made something that killed poeple AND kept them out? And it certainly will deter a military force, ESPECIALLY if he's going against not-these US. Hell, even we don't operate in NBC areas unless we have to. Decon is a pain in the ass, and can still hurt/kill someone if not done properly. Gulf War, we didn't even have closed-air NBC systems in hardly any military vehicles. Many Humvees weren't even uparmored.
50 U.S. Code § 2302. Definitions
(1) The term “weapon of mass destruction” means any weapon or device that is intended, or has the capability, to cause death or serious bodily injury to a significant number of people through the release, dissemination, or impact of—
(A) toxic or poisonous chemicals or their precursors;
(B) a disease organism; or
(C) radiation or radioactivity.

Oh, and if you start looking at civilian definitions, WMDs get alot smaller, such as pipe bombs; even some fireworks or your kid's model rocket could be classed as a WMD if the charge is big enough.

And where do you think higher percentage material comes from?

It comes from Zippe design gas centrifuges. Something not easy to come by, or build, and which Saddam didn't have.

If these US hadn't gone into Iraq, what would have stopped Saddam from enriching everything he had, as much as he could?

The fact that he didn't have centrifuges would be his first problem. He couldn't just buy them. Even the sale of tubes suitable for building them is controlled by nuclear agencies.

A dirty bomb most certainly is a WMD.

According to who? You? The Iraq Survey Group doesn't share your opinion. The Duelfer Report is all about Iraq's various WMD programs and never mentions dirty bombs.

The NRC doesn't agree with you either:

'A "dirty bomb" is a type of "radiological dispersal device" that combines a conventional explosive, such as dynamite, with radioactive material. The terms dirty bomb and RDD are often used interchangeably. Most RDDs would not release enough radiation to kill people or cause severe illness – the conventional explosive itself would be more harmful to people than the radioactive material. However, an RDD explosion could create fear and panic, contaminate property and require potentially costly cleanup.'

'A dirty bomb is not a nuclear bomb. A nuclear bomb creates an explosion that is millions of times more powerful than a dirty bomb. The cloud of radiation from a nuclear bomb could spread thousands of square miles, whereas a dirty bomb's radiation could be dispersed within a few blocks or miles of the explosion. A dirty bomb is not a "weapon of mass destruction" but a "weapon of mass disruption," where contamination and anxiety are the major objectives.'

https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/fs-dirty-bombs.html