Summit endorses Obama goal on nuclear security

[Neil]

I think it is extremely more likely that a terrorist group will use a bomb before a state will, by many magnitudes.

Hard to say.  India and Pakistan are pretty likely, as far as those things go.  Pakistan is massively outclassed in a potential conflict, while India is pretty sure that Pakistan will go there, and confident that they can win a nuclear war.

[crazy canuck]

More likely, yes.  But by many magnitudes.  Not sure about that. The terrorist groups still have to obtain the bomb and a nation state is more likely to obtain that capability.

What is the most likely threat is Iran becoming capable of creating nuclear devices that can in turn be used by terrorists.  Either way it is foolish to call Obama's comment "bullshit".

Nuclear terrorism doesn't even need fusion or fission.  A dirty bomb would be devastating to a city.

I'd argue, though, that it is likelier that a terrorist-employed actual nuke would likelier come from Pakistan than Iran, at least for the next few decades.  Iran won't have bombs to spare.

On reflection I agree with both points.

[Siege]

I disagree.

[The Brain]

A dirty bomb would be devastating to a city.

It would have to be pretty fucking enormous.

[crazy canuck]

A dirty bomb would be devastating to a city.

It would have to be pretty fucking enormous.

Why?

Most commercial districts in even major cities dont spread over that wide an area.  Take that out and you effectively take out the heart of most cities.

[crazy canuck]

I disagree.

Further support for my change of opinion on the subject.

[The Brain]

A dirty bomb would be devastating to a city.

It would have to be pretty fucking enormous.

Why?

Most commercial districts in even major cities dont spread over that wide an area.  Take that out and you effectively take out the heart of most cities.

To "take it out" you need a LOT of material.

[crazy canuck]

A dirty bomb would be devastating to a city.

It would have to be pretty fucking enormous.

Why?

Most commercial districts in even major cities dont spread over that wide an area.  Take that out and you effectively take out the heart of most cities.

To "take it out" you need a LOT of material.

Why is that?  I thought the radioactivity spread with the wind.

You dont need to actually destroy anything.  Just make it uninhabitable.

To take another tact.  Are you saying we dont have much to fear regarding terrorists getting their hands on dirty bombs?

[Eddie Teach]

Terrorists may be more likely to use one, but a nation state is more likely to use hundreds.

[The Brain]

A dirty bomb would be devastating to a city.

It would have to be pretty fucking enormous.

Why?

Most commercial districts in even major cities dont spread over that wide an area.  Take that out and you effectively take out the heart of most cities.

To "take it out" you need a LOT of material.

Why is that?  I thought the radioactivity spread with the wind.

You dont need to actually destroy anything.  Just make it uninhabitable.

To take another tact.  Are you saying we dont have much to fear regarding terrorists getting their hands on dirty bombs?

How it spreads depends on which form the radioactive material takes. Even if we assume 100% of the material in the bomb gets dispersed over the area in question (not realistic, much of it will be concentrated close to the blast, especially in a man-made canyon like a city) then we have a part of a city that has a layer of radioactive dust. Send in the cleanup crews. Stone and concrete and asphalt are not that hard to clean, just hosing it down will take care of a lot of the dust. After the cleanup you will have some radioactivity left. For this remnant to make the area uninhabitable the initial amount will have to have been pretty great, and this is if you make a conservative estimate that cleanup success is a fixed percentage.

In the initial blast people outdoors in the area will get radioactive dust in their lungs and digestive tracts. Some will likely suffer health effects because of this.

The exact danger posed by a Bq of radioactivity depends a lot on the isotope in question and, for inhaled and ingested material, on its chemical composition. Alpha emitters (like Americium, Uranium and Plutonium) are much more dangerous than gamma emitters when inhaled, but are harmless as long as they remain outside your body. Gamma emitters (like Co-60 and Cs-137) will give you dose as long as you are near them but they are because of this very easily detected and therefore easy to clean away. And then there's the rarer beta emitters such as Sr-90. I cannot say which is the most likely to be used in an attack but the alpha emitters are generally harder to come by in any quantities, for obvious reasons. Co-60 and Cs-137 are commonly used in a number of industries. There's a bunch of short-lived isotopes in industrial use but they are not very useful for this application.

The basic problem that a dirty bomb terrorist faces is that radioactivity just isn't very dangerous. You can, for a limited time make a part of a city over the recommended limits for everyday living, sure. To make the area uninhabitable in a practical sense you need a LOT of nasty material. Consider that the other Chernobyl reactors remained in use after the disaster in reactor 4.

My personal impression is that the physical effects of any likely dirty bomb will be surprisingly small. The material is also a LOT harder to move around undetected compared to conventional materials because of its radioactivity. If I were a terrorist I wouldn't spend scarce resources on the dirty bomb approach.

[Neil]

Actually, given the panic and the relatively small effects, a dirty bomb would result in an excellent investment opportunity.

[Josquius]

So...how about Obama being a secret ev0l muslim with the summit having a Islamic crescent for a logo and all that?

[garbon]

Dunno.  The Romanian Germans haven't told us yet.  Probably they don't want to speak with their mouths full (of Slavic cock).

Why would they be worried about being polite?

[grumbler]

Dunno.  The Romanian Germans haven't told us yet.  Probably they don't want to speak with their mouths full (of Slavic cock).

Why would they be worried about being polite?

Unsuccessful troll is unsuccessful.