[Allan]

One such bomb would not eliminate Israel; it would contaminate part of one Israeli city.

I believe this is not the case if the Cobalt was used to encase a 'normal' nuclear weapon.

[Mitchell]

[One such bomb would not eliminate Israel; it would contaminate part of one Israeli city.]

I believe this is not the case if the Cobalt was used to encase a 'normal' nuclear weapon.

I was thinking of what people typically call a dirty bomb -- not a nuclear weapon as such, but an ordinary explosive that scatters radioactive material around. Cobalt-60 is a carcinogen (I think it emits gamma rays), with a half-life of about 5 years. A dirty bomb of this sort could render part of a city effectively uninhabitable for a few generations. The panic and the economic consequences would be severe also.

As for an atomic bomb encased with cobalt-60, this would likely destroy an entire city (depending on the size of the atomic bomb -- think of Hiroshima) and make it uninhabitable for several generations.

I don't see terrorists or rogue states using a bomb like that, though, at this time. The task of designing, building, and deploying an atomic bomb is hard enough, without the unnecessary extra complications of the cobalt-60. (It's like the horrible bombs that the Palestinian terrorists are now using, with nails and rat poison; they didn't start with those bombs, and I don't think terrorists would start with an extra-complicated atomic bomb either.)