Talk:Radiological weapon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Associated task forces (general topics): Military technology and engineering task force Weaponry task force

Why are Radiological weapon and dirty bomb separate articles? If a consolidation of content is warrented, I'm not sure which title should be where the article is and which is where the redirect should go. Some thoughts: "dirty bomb" is more widely known and used but is also more ambiguous than "radiological weapon" in my opinion. Also, use of the word "bomb" in this case implies that this is a nuclear device -- which it isn't. I also remember this term being used in the 1980s to describe a nuclear device that has extra radioactive material on board. --maveric149

Iraq under Saddam Hussein is reported to have tested a radiological weapon in 1987 for use against Iran. This weapon was found to be impractical because the radioactive isotopes in the weapon would decay quickly, rendering it useless within a week after the weapon was manufactured. Furthermore, it was found that for the radioactive material to spread, weather conditions had to be ideal. These problems are in general shared by all forms of air-borne radiological warfare.

Is there a source for this? I'm skeptical, because I've been skeptical of US Intelligence reports since there has been a bit of doubt on they're correctness/NPOV. So a source would be nice to back this up. Leaving it in the article for now. --ORBIT 06:17, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I have read a similar description from the UN that had sent inspectors and investigated the 1987 event (after 1991). The problems with RW are well documented in US military history, and are essentially are similar to what Iraq discovered in 1987. The additional problem is that a RW stockpile conflicts with the logistics needed for obtaining plutonium for a nation with a limited neutron budget.

I am surprised that RW has been limited to a "RDD" (a catchy fraze from a contemporary security paper). If you asked someone in 1960's, RW would have also included deliberate use of nuclear fallout and enhanced radiation variants of nuclear weapons (i.e., "neutron bomb).

If you watch the BBC Programme "The power of Nightmares" you will see proof and fact backed up to show that the "Dirty Bomb" is useless (by military standards)- at worst it is a weapon of fear, but the actual harm is neglegable by in large (see above article) unless you are caught in the direct line of the blast. Please will someone clear this myth up once and for all!!? The media, films and TV series take great pleasure in keeping this load of twadle alive and well!

That one is from the Federation of American Scientists Strategic Security Blog. A table linked from the blog entry makes the point that to get enough radioactivity out of Uranium to devastate, say, Manhattan, it would take 1,460 tons. The GOOD stuff, enriched Uranium for nuclear power plants. You'd need a nuclear bomb just to blow it up. That's compared to a few pounds of Radium, or the real deal, Cobalt 60, of which you'd need basically a pinch, a TINY pinch, 3.2 grams, or Celsium-137, for which you'd need 40 grams. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.5.112 (talk) 13:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Episode of 24

On a recent episode of 24 (TV series), Jack remotely piloted an unmanned drone (equipped by terrorists with a tactical "suitcase" nuke) to a crash-landing. The bomb did not explode, but containment was breached, and the first responders (non-hazmat firemen) were exposed, presumably to a fatal dose. The vice president referred to it as a radiological attack, "a dirty bomb," in an attempt to justify a retaliatory nuclear strike. Could this be mentioned as an illustration of the different types of radiological attacks? --205.201.141.146 21:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] template

I'm bad at the pretty stuffright now.. so would someone mind adding the WMD template to this page

[edit] History section

I'm fairly certain the "History" section is original research, and incorrect. I am pretty sure they talked about use radioactive poisons within the Manhattan Project as early as 1942, and that the idea of radioactive poisons had almost certainly been explorer earlier in fiction and speculative science. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 22:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)