Discussion: The Likelyhood of Dirty Bombs

[kota1342000]

A radiological dispersal device (dirty bomb as the more popular term is) is actually stupidly easy to construct. As for what level of NWH skill is needed; just enough to read detection equipment (active detectors, not dosimeters or film badges) and a recognition as to what to shovel up is pretty much all thats needed. In the world of T2k there wouldnt be any shortage of materials for it lying around, though you may have to travel some depending on how many nuclear weapon hits you have in your game. Personally I go with canon target lists. Then all you have to do is pack your active material around some kind of explosive and you have your RDD. As for delivery, it would depend on size. An RDD the size of a hand grenade is feasible though impractical. If youre going to spread radioactive material then go big.

However, the usefulness of an RDD would drop off sharply as well as survivors would know more about how to detect and protect themselves and their communities from radiological exposure. Currently in real life if you say "RADIATION" too loud then people flip out without understanding that not all radiological incidents are really that harmful. Simply depends on the materials activity, time of exposure, distance from exposure and shielding in between people and the source. Having done hazmat work for a few years, I have to say that of all the hazard classes (explosives, coompressed gases, flammable liquids, flammable solids, oxidizers, poisons, radioactives, corrosives, misc.) I would definitely rather deal with radioactive incidents than say a huge oxidizer spill or a burning propane tank on its side. LOL

For T2k I would think that chemical or biological weapons would make more of a scare. Sounds stupid, but not everyone would be ready or prepared for some kind of chemical attack on their surviving community, but are difficult weapons to use effectively. Bio threats on the other hand could wipe out a community unless they found out where the source of contamination was, isolated and quarantined the sick and made a competent medical response. Thats something that not many small or medium size communities could do.

[oldschoolgm]

As far as viability, a dirty bomb would definitely decimate and area about the size of Kalisz, and marauders would want one to protect their spoils so to say from larger organized units. Petty warlords and other sorts of similiar people would also want one. Or I would think so. Fear is a powerful tool for controlling people and being able to kill a larger enemy fast would be a huge tool of fear.

Another idea for using a dirty bomb, what do you think would happen if the KGB set one off at Bremerhaven when the US troops were trying to leave?

I could also see several uses in Iran by both sides, though I could see the Soviets being more willing to use one covertly.

When I look at our current world and the amount of potential perpetrators who would love to have a dirty bomb and the plethora of uses for one, I don't imagine there would be any fewer people who would want one for what ever reason.

I also like what you have to say about the Bio/Chem question too Kota, and that is also a thought, though without a decent lab, I would imagine it would be harder to do a bio/chem bomb than it would be a nuclear one.

[kota1342000]

Originally Posted by oldschoolgm

I also like what you have to say about the Bio/Chem question too Kota, and that is also a thought, though without a decent lab, I would imagine it would be harder to do a bio/chem bomb than it would be a nuclear one.

True, but a decent lab for building or manufacturing biological weapons isnt really that hard. Ever find a "science experiment" in your fridge? "WTF WAS THIS??? I WAS GOING TO EAT THIS??? AND WHATS THIS GREENISH FUR ON IT?!?" Same principle. Weaponizing anything you grow is typically the toughest part. Or it can be as simple and brutal as throwing something dead in a community water supply.
But youre right about chemical weapons. Even the out in the woods/improvised lab would work but one screw up and you may not have to worry about it anymore. Might be difficult to justify unless you characters or NPCs really knew what they were doing.

Also real quick, there seems to be a misconception of what a "dirty bomb" is. Perfectly reasonable, I taught this to lots of students.
Dirty Bombs or RDDs are simply radioactive material wrapped around and explosive. The only thing the explosive does is scatter the material all over the place, and in some cases it isnt really that effective of a weapon; Helbent and Paul are right on the money with the psychological effect. A common thought that enters into the mind is a "blue flash" kind of explosion or a "miniature nuclear blast"...neither of which happen with an RDD. The blue flash actually comes from criticality incidents (most of these during manufacture of fissile material for nuclear weapons) and for a miniature nuclear blast you would need to build a nuclear weapon as usual...just much less fissile material in the core.

But the discussion here is making me revise my initial thoughts about the value of an RDD. If you could find sufficiently active material, especially something difficult to work with and tough to clean up, I can see that being a potent weapon in the hands of players or NPCs without scruples.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by kota1342000

A common thought that enters into the mind is a "blue flash" kind of explosion or a "miniature nuclear blast"...neither of which happen with an RDD. The blue flash actually comes from criticality incidents (most of these during manufacture of fissile material for nuclear weapons) and for a miniature nuclear blast you would need to build a nuclear weapon as usual...just much less fissile material in the core.

Is that the same as a sub-yield explosion, like the North Koreans keep having happen? Or is a sub-yield explosion simply a mistake in design?

[Targan]

As I've mentioned in another thread some time ago (maybe a year or more) the PCs in my last campaign decided after they got back to the CONUS that they wanted to build a "dirty bomb" and they came up with a novel way to do this: they specifically searched for broken x-ray machines in medical clinics, hospitals and at international airports. The CO of the PC's unit, Major Anthony Po, was originally a medical doctor and he knew that x-ray machines contain little canisters of radioactive isotopes such as Cobalt 60 and Iridium-192.

I was the GM of the campaign and the player of Major Po never did tell me why he wanted his character to be able to make dirty bombs. On one hand I was eager to find out. On the other hand the thought of the amoral Major Po possessing a dirty bomb filled me with horror. I'll have to ask the player next time I see him.

[helbent4]

Originally Posted by Targan

I was the GM of the campaign and the player of Major Po never did tell me why he wanted his character to be able to make dirty bombs. On one hand I was eager to find out. On the other hand the thought of the amoral Major Po possessing a dirty bomb filled me with horror. I'll have to ask the player next time I see him.

Targan,

I can honestly say I'm not shocked. As the unholy love-child of Oliver North and Herr Doktor Mengele, does he need a reason? Maybe his Lord Satan commanded him?

Regardless, most X-Ray machines generate X-Rays using a cathode-ray tube, not radioactive material. Some "hard" X-Ray machines use Cobalt-60 and Iridium-192, primarily for industrial (structural) scanning. There are Cobalt-60 machines are used for radiation therapy in cancer treatment, but these are in the minority.

Tony

[kota1342000]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

Is that the same as a sub-yield explosion, like the North Koreans keep having happen? Or is a sub-yield explosion simply a mistake in design?

Thats definitely a mistake in design heehee....
One of the most closely held secrets about nuclear weapons design is the arrangement of explosives around the core of the weapon in order to compress the core equally from all directions at once; the math behind it is incredible and well beyond me. Any mistakes there would result in a imperfect "crush" effect and blow a good part of the core out of the weapon or result in the sub-yield explosion, also called a "fizzile". Keep in mind though that fizziles have had yields from .5 to 5 kilotons. That assumes a "Fat Man" type design as well...as opposed to the "Little Boy" design where explosives are used in a gun-like effect to shoot a slug of fissile material into another fissile component.
I remember reading about the "Plumbbob" tests we performed in the 1950s where we detonated the smallest nuclear explosion on record at only 55 tons of TNT. Not a fizzle, just a very small weapon.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by kota1342000

I remember reading about the "Plumbbob" tests we performed in the 1950s where we detonated the smallest nuclear explosion on record at only 55 tons of TNT. Not a fizzle, just a very small weapon.

0.055 Kt. Isn't there a problem with the triggers on devices that small due to the radioactivity? Or was the actual device much larger than the yield would indicate?

[helbent4]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

0.055 Kt. Isn't there a problem with the triggers on devices that small due to the radioactivity? Or was the actual device much larger than the yield would indicate?

Paul,

Apparently, "Pascal-A" was actually a test of a fail-safe design and was intended to ignite a "1-point detonation", where (I guess) the plutonium only made contact at a single point and not at several points (like normal). The yield was only expected to be 1-2 lbs (as a "fizzle") but it fizzled a lot more than they expected! In theory, 55 tons is approaching the lower limit.

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/Plumbob.html

(Scroll down to "Pascal-A".)

"It is not known how small the smallest theoretically possible nuclear explosion would be, but 55 tons is the smallest of which there is a record, and may approach the lower boundary."

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-...explosions.htm

Tony