Talk:Dirty bomb

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster Management.

What does this mean "inefficiency of early nuclear weapons (as low as 2% or less)" - can someone put this in context? 2% of what? Thanks! Intrigue 16:07, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My understanding was that a fission-fusion-fision bomb was considered a dirty bomb because the exterior uranium wouldn't be heavily consumed in the blast. Does anyone else know more about this? Ckape 05:26, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've seen the word "dirty" chucked about in stuff about nuclear-weapon design - something about having to add a lot of fission material to to fusion bombs because pure fusion is a fizzle. The dirtiness refers to the fallout. I think this FAS article puts it well:

Despite the public hype...there was a serious problem with any weapon based mostly on fusion energy. It doesn't produce a very satisfactory explosion. In uranium fission, 90% of the energy is released as the kinetic energy of highly-charged, fully-ionized fission fragments...With a high electrostatic charge [avg +46]...these fission fragments convert their energy to heat quickly and within inches, producing an intense point source of heat. The resulting blast and fire is the whole point of a nuclear explosion.

In fusion, on the other hand, only 20% of the energy is released as the kinetic energy of charged fusion products...[and] Because of the lower charge [+2 avg], the bremsstrahlung effect, which produces the heat, is much less powerful...the bulk of the fusion energy, 80%, is carried off by neutrally-charged neutrons...very inefficient producers of blast and fire...

But an H-bomb which is designed so that every fusion-produced neutron results in a uranium fission event is very efficient. It not only converts relatively useless neutron energy into blast and fire energy, it also multiplies the total energy release by a factor of ten or more...This dramatic multiplication of yield has proved irresistible to bomb designers, despite the fact that it makes an extremely dirty explosion with vast amounts of lethal radioactive fallout.

(emphasis added) So obvious when it's put that way =) I would guess you've misunderstood: the uranium is quite definitely consumed.

Also see "dirty bomb" here. Kwantus 05:13, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)

The uranium would be consumed but would generate fission products, such as in the Castle Bravo accident. (It should also be noted that Morland is not officially associated with FAS, but that doesn't mean his information is inaccurate). The term "dirty" in this context was always contrasted with "clean"—there was discussion over whether or not one could produce a bomb which had no fallout, but it became clear that, whether possible or not, this was not the path pursued by either the USA or the USSR. --Fastfission 20:52, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 WMD 2 Dirty Bomb Another Term For Improvised Explosive Devices? 3 Allegation 4 Dirty War

[edit] WMD

Can it be debated that under many definitions, a dirty bomb is a WMD?

You can be sure public prosecutors would calit a WMD if an event occured. Also i question the assertion that the term "entered the public lexicon" in 2002. See, for example, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/12/18/archive/main321759.shtml a CBS story dated 2001. --agr 11:36, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

How come there's no info on the Bomb the Nazis tried to build in WWII?

We don't really know if it was a "dirty bomb" or not. We don't really know what they were up to. Hitlers Bombe is somewhat confused on the issue; I'm not sure there would be any benefit to talking about it in this article. --Fastfission 00:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know.. well wait.. they didn't really understand nuclear explosions until after WWII when we used the Nuke on Japan. So I don't think Hitler would have known much about dirty bombs. Simple answer.

Dirty bombs don't utilize "nuclear explosions". Please read this article. --Fastfission 00:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Other than that, to build a highly dangerous WMD dirty bomb you'd need a lot of freakin' time and work. With all that radioactive material for such a WMD, someone would rather just build a radioactive bomb or nuke instead of a fall out bomb. However, if someone were stupid enough to go through with it or wanted to be different, yeah they could make it into a WMD. Dirty Bombs to me are a way of getting people to evacuate an area for good because unlike a nuke that just blows everything away, the radioactive fallout has a half life where it will stay around for some time killing things slowly that stick around it. --Cyberman 17:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that's just ignorant nonsense. If a dirty bomb went off, you'd have a bunch of guys in moon suits wandering around with geiger counters, vacuum cleaners and shovels and such like. They would scoop up the debris and take it away to be placed into storage. The area would be rendered safe. This tidy up has happened before- countries have had mishaps with nuclear bombs (plane crashes and so forth where the bombs didn't go off, but some of the conventional explosives that comprise the bomb detonated and made a mess).WolfKeeper 00:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dirty Bomb Another Term For Improvised Explosive Devices?

A description of the documentary called Power of Nightmares was posted over at the Penn and Teller board. It appears one user disagrees with the definition of a dirty bomb used by the documentary saying that it's a term used for IED's which are extremely dangerous weapons. However, dirty bombs appear to be a term used by many sources for what this Wikipedia article describes. Maybe take it into account, ask the guy some questions on the board and see what he has to say about the IED argument. You don't have to register on the board or anything and please keep the conversation civil. I'd really love to learn about this debate as well as know if this documentary is actually true.

Penn and Teller message board

Dirty bombs essentially IEDs with radioactive isotopes attached. They are not "extremely dangerous weapons" as WMDs — they, like all explosives, can be dangerous to those in the immediate viscinity, but are not going to be dangerous beyond that range. When people say that dirty bombs are not that dangerous, they simply mean "they are not on a level of danger on par with other WMDs, even though many people assume they are the same as WMDs because they involve radiation." --Fastfission 00:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Allegation

"On 10 June 2002, U.S. officials announced they had a month earlier captured an alleged al-Qaida terrorist named José Padilla in Chicago's O'Hare International Airport. Padilla was subsequently transferred from FBI custody to a military brig in Charleston, S.C. The Bush Administration accused him of planning to set off a dirty bomb. Padilla was indicted on unrelated charges on November 22, 2005."

Given he wasn't even indicted on the same charge, should this have a place in the article. I deleted it once but it was restored. DV8 2XL 23:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

The fact that he was held for three years without charges on the mere allegation that he planned to use a "dirty bomb" is an important story, at least in the U.S. The question of whether the government had the right to do this may still come before the U.S. Supreme Court. So I think it belongs as in this article, even if only as a caution that such allegations can be abused. --agr 05:40, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

This is basically a technical article on a type of weapon. What you are describing is an American political issue, which regardless of it's importance in the U.S. has no place in this topic. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. DV8 2XL 17:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dirty War

Accidentally updated before completing edit summary - The bomb is clearly detonated outside the tube station entrance. See http://www.cwgcuser.org.uk/personal/subterra/lu/lufilmtv/dirtywar.htm Nick Cooper 00:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)