Everything about Radiological Weapon totally explained
A
radiological weapon (or
radiological dispersion device,
RDD) is any weapon that's designed to spread
radioactive material with the intent to kill, and cause disruption upon a city or nation. It is primarily known as a
dirty bomb because it isn't a true
nuclear weapon and doesn't yield the same destructive power. It uses conventional explosives to spread radioactive material, most commonly the spent fuels from
nuclear power plants or radioactive medical waste.
Explanation
Radiological weapons have been suggested as a possible weapon of terrorism used to create panic and casualties in densely populated areas. They could also render a great deal of property useless for an extended period, unless costly
remediation was undertaken. The radiological source and quality greatly impacts the effectiveness of a radiological weapon.
Factors such as: energy and type of radiation,
half-life, size of explosion, availability, shielding, portability, and the role of the environment will determine the effect of the radiological weapon.
Radioisotopes that pose the greatest security risk include:, used in radiological medical equipment,,,,,,, and . All of these isotopes, except for the latter, are created in nuclear power plants. While the amount of radiation dispersed from the event will likely be minimal, the fact of any radiation may be enough to cause panic and disruption.
History
The history of radioactive weaponry may be traced to a 1943 memo to
Brigadier General Leslie Groves of the
Manhattan Project. Transmitting a report entitled, "Use of Radioactive Materials as a Military Weapon," the memo states:
The United States, however, chose not to pursue radiological weapons during World War II, though early on in the project considered it as a backup plan in case nuclear fission proved impossible to tame. Some US policymakers and scientists involved in the project felt that radiological weapons would qualify as chemical weapons and thus violate international law.
Deployment
One possible way of dispersing the material is by using a “
dirty bomb,” a conventional explosive which disperses radioactive material. Dirty bombs are not a type of
nuclear weapon, which requires a nuclear
chain reaction and the creation of a
critical mass. Whereas a nuclear weapon will usually create mass casualties immediately following the blast, a dirty bomb scenario would initially cause only minimal casualties from the conventional explosion.
Means of
radiological warfare that don't rely on any specific weapon, but rather on spreading radioactive contamination via a
food chain or
water table, seem to be more effective in some ways, but share many of the same problems as
chemical warfare.
Military uses
Radiological weapons are widely considered to be militarily useless for a state-sponsored army and are initially not hoped to be used by any military forces. Firstly, the use of such a weapon is of no use to an occupying force, as the target area becomes uninhabitable. Furthermore, area-denial weapons are generally of limited use to an attacking army, as it slows the rate of advance. However, there are new proofs regarding the usage of radiological weapons espcially projectiles with
depleted uranium being used widely by the occupying forces in Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan leading to fatal illnesses observed by the soldiers like Kosovo and
Gulf war syndrome.
Finally, like
biological weapons, radiological weapons can take days to act on the opposing force, espcially causing cancer to a larger population and increase in the statistics of the mutilated babies at the time of the birth. They therefore not only fail in neutralizing the opposing force instantly, but they also allow time for massive retaliation which has been observed in Iraq.
Dirty bombs
A
dirty bomb is a radiological weapon dispersed with conventional
explosives.
There is currently (as of
2007) an ongoing debate about the damage that terrorists using such a weapon might inflict. Many experts believe that a
dirty bomb such that terrorists might reasonably be able to construct would be unlikely to harm more than a few people and hence it would be no more deadly than a conventional bomb. Hence, this line of argument goes, the objectively dominant effect would be the moral and economic damage due to the massive fear and panic such an incident would spur. On the other hand, some believe that the fatalities and injuries might be in fact much more severe. This point is, for example, made by physicists
Peter D Zimmerman et al. (
King's College London) who reexamined the
Goiânia accident which is arguably comparable. (Ref.:
Nature Science Update of 5 May 2004
)
Further Information
Get more info on 'Radiological Weapon'.
|
External Link Exchanges
Do you know how hard it is to get a link from a large encyclopaedia? Well we're different and will prove it. To get a link from us just add the following HTML to your site on a relevant page:
<a href="http://radiological_weapon.totallyexplained.com">Radiological weapon Totally Explained</a>
Then simply click through this link from your web page. Our crawlers will verify your link, extract the title of your web page and instantly add a link back to it. If you like you can remove the words Totally Explained and embed the link in article text.
As long as your link remains in place, we'll keep our link to you right here. Please play fair - our crawlers are watching. Your site must be closely related to this one's topic. Any kind of spamming, dubious practises or removing the link will result in your link from us being dropped and, potentially, your whole site being banned. |
