Whats all the fuss about "dirty bombs" then?!

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Whats all the fuss about "dirty bombs" then?!

Posted by George Smiley on Nov-09-2004 11:33:

Whats all the fuss about "dirty bombs" then?!

Apparently, unless you are injured by the initial blast, dirty bombs are harmless. To even just get sick you would have to stand in that same position where the bomb went off for one year!

So...if a dirty bomb goes off in your town...dont panic!...dont evacuate!...

Have a shower, wash your clothes and put the kettle on!

Washington Post

Posted by LiveTheDream on Nov-09-2004 11:43:

Yea the goverment feeds us info that is not true, to give them reason to go to war with people who may try to do such a thing. There say Bush goverment planed the attack on the twin tower, to justefie a war on terrer, i think that would be insane if true, but it does exsplan Bushs reastions when he heard about the attack, he must of know about the possiblity of an attack by looking at his body langue, but to plan them himself?

But yea, if you whant to keep contral of a large poplation, fear is the best way.

Posted by Krypton on Nov-09-2004 15:25:

actually, the hype is that the dirty bomb has the potential to cause illness. but thats not the main purpose of the bomb. its purpose is psychological. It would cause panic, because many people equate a dirty bomb to a nuclear bomb even though it doesnt have a nuclear explosion. its just uninformed people.

Posted by wolverine16 on Nov-09-2004 16:58:

I'm glad it's not as bad as thought, I was worried after all of them went off to scare us into voting for Kerry...oh wait, that was just a lie from the Bush administration that there was going to be a certain attack to help Kerry. I love the "vote for us if no attacks happen because we keep you safer than the other guy, but vote for us too if something does happen because we think the terrorists want the other guy to win" plan. You can't lose!

Seriously though, has anything happened in the Jose Padilla case lately? He's been detained for a long time now for allegedly trying to build one of those, then they said he had other plans in addition to building a dirty bomb. Does he ever get a trial?

Posted by Q5echo on Nov-09-2004 17:14:

Smiley is right to question the validity of effectiveness, and the ones who are in the know, scientists and terror specialists have raised the same questions. it's just that terrorist don't fully understand this. their objective is just to do it. hence the concern.

Posted by drizzt81 on Nov-09-2004 17:26:

quote:
Originally posted by wolverine16
Does he ever get a trial?

he is an 'enemy combatant' hence due process doesn't apply... or something like that.

Posted by wolverine16 on Nov-09-2004 17:36:

quote:
Originally posted by drizzt81
he is an 'enemy combatant' hence due process doesn't apply... or something like that.

Yes, he was labeled that, but there was a court ruling that gave a lot of the prisoners at Guantanimo Bay the right to trial. Does the enemy combatant label still prevent him from trial in light of that?

Posted by St_Andrew on Nov-09-2004 22:57:

quote:
Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk::
its just uninformed people.

like your current government...?

Posted by Krypton on Nov-11-2004 18:38:

quote:
Originally posted by St_Andrew
like your current government...?

actually, i think the beauracracy of the Department of Homeland Security headed by Tom Ridge keeps us very well informed through CNN.

Posted by auujay on Nov-11-2004 18:59:

quote:
Originally posted by wolverine16
Yes, he was labeled that, but there was a court ruling that gave a lot of the prisoners at Guantanimo Bay the right to trial. Does the enemy combatant label still prevent him from trial in light of that?

I thought the ruling gave the detainees the right to sue the government but I am not sure if it gave them the right to a trial for the crimes they are charged with.

Posted by Dervish on Nov-12-2004 00:42:

Re: Whats all the fuss about "dirty bombs" then?!

quote:
Originally posted by George Smiley
Apparently, unless you are injured by the initial blast, dirty bombs are harmless. To even just get sick you would have to stand in that same position where the bomb went off for one year!

So...if a dirty bomb goes off in your town...dont panic!...dont evacuate!...

Have a shower, wash your clothes and put the kettle on!

Washington Post

1) It is a weapon of terror not war. I.e. the percived danger/damage is the reason it would be used.

2) Put it on a big pile of natural resourses, say oil (place it right say Iraq (Formally 2nd greatest oil producer in the world I belive), and make them unuseable for many many years. I.e. put up the price of oil and make the then president and most western (i.e. unholy infidel) rulers in a world of shit.

Not fun.

Posted by George Smiley on Nov-12-2004 16:34:

Re: Re: Whats all the fuss about "dirty bombs" then?!

quote:
Originally posted by Dervish
1) It is a weapon of terror not war. I.e. the percived danger/damage is the reason it would be used.

2) Put it on a big pile of natural resourses, say oil (place it right say Iraq (Formally 2nd greatest oil producer in the world I belive), and make them unuseable for many many years. I.e. put up the price of oil and make the then president and most western (i.e. unholy infidel) rulers in a world of shit.

Not fun.

I think you are confusing a "dirty bomb" with a Nuclear weapon!

The whole point is that these bombs are exactly the same as any other bomb (obviously that is a concern but not the concern they are leading us to believe) A "dirty bomb" is not radioactive enough to contaminate anything to a dangerous level! As the scientist in the article states, if a "dirty bomb" did go off, assuming you weren't killed in the explosion, all you would have to do is take a shower and wash your clothes to get rid of the radiation! To die as a result of said radiation, you would have to stand on that same spot for a year!

A "dirty bomb" is NOT a nuclear explosion...

Posted by Sunsnail on Nov-13-2004 06:42:

Thanks! I thought dirty bombs were very dangerous. I learn everything i know from the TA forums

Posted by DrUg_Tit0 on Nov-13-2004 08:48:

Well, theoretically if you place a dirty bomb in the middle of Manhattan where millions of people go through each day, then it might be a problem because the area would have to be blocked for a certain time period. Otherwise you'd probably get like 1% increased cancer rate in the population. But it's certainly nowhere near as dangerous as a nuke.

Posted by Dervish on Nov-13-2004 22:49:

Na mate I've worked in two differnent nuclear test facilitys a dirty nuke could seriously fuck up your day if you were a oil baron.

Edit: I mean the at the center of the explosion, assuming you have really high Sv stuff.