I'm sorry Michael, I have to, once again, take issue with this "dirty bomb" scenario. You posted an article from "thebulletin.com" detailing Iraq's attempts to build such a device, and implied that something like it could be exploded here.
Yes, they did use "zirconium", but you failed to mention that in using it, it required exposure to a radioactive source, namely a nuclear reactor.
"To make the radioactive materials, Iraqi engineers prepared special metals to irradiate in a reactor at Tuwaitha, Iraq's primary nuclear site. The document said the metal was mostly zirconium, which is often used in atomic reactors because it resists corrosion. The zirconium mixture also included hafnium, uranium and iron."
Furthermore, once the material is irradiated, it must be used very quickly before radioactive decay makes them ineffective:
"The main flaws of the weapon, the report said, were that its radioactive charges lost strength quickly. The irradiatiated charge had to be used within a week."
And this thing the Iraqi's built was HUGE!!!
"The bomb, 12 feet long and weighing more than a ton, according to the document, could be dropped on troop areas, industrial centers, airports, railroad stations, bridges and "any other areas the command decrees."
Which all goes to show how difficult builing one, let alone smuggling it in, transporting it to the target, and employing it, would be.
Thus, the sheer logistics of such an operation dictate that any such device would be small and rather ineffective.
Hawk |
