Dirty Bombs...

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]Sifu wrote:
I think some of you are really missing the danger of a dirty bomb. The potential loss of life isn’t the only issue to consider.

Rendering a couple dozen blocks around New Yorks financial district uninhabitable would be a serious blow to the economy.

If several other major cities were to be hit simultaneously the economic effects could be massive.

The American economy is the engine that drives the entire world economy. The full damage from a dirty bomb attack might not be immediately felt, it could be something that slowly crept it’s way around the world.

Those who think that a dirty bomb attack is no big deal are not thinking about the big picture. Anarchist groups like AlQaeda can benefit from the disorder that a worldwide economic collapse can cause.

[/quote]

A dirty bomb isn’t going to render an area inhabitable unless they use something really nasty like plutonium or weapons grade uranium. The blast, most likely small, is going to throw fragments of the radioactive material around like shrapnel. The walls, people, and cars in the fragment pattern are going to get the worst of the radiation.

This isn’t a nuclear blast so the radiation is not released from fission or fusion, but instead is released from the material itself. Remove the material and you remove the radiation. Remove it quickly and won’t have to worry about an irradiated area emitting its own radiation.

I am by no means downplaying the threat. If you mention radiation, people freak the f*ck out, but a dirty bomb is dirty, not catastrophic.

Now the detector systems are worth while, in my opinion. If you can prevent the stuff from getting into the metropolitan areas for a couple million dollars than good to go. Stopping a dirty weapon is wayyyy easier than cleaning it up. I don’t think there is anyone on the NYPD or NYFD that would argue that point.

82

[quote]JeffR wrote:
However, it is YOU who made that statement, “Just take some iodine pills.”[/quote]

Not what I said either.

You asked if I thought dirty bombs were WMDs. I said I did not consider them as such.

And iodine pills will help reduce the effect of exposure to some kinds of radiation.

It’s one of their uses; whether you’re aware of it or not.

Regardless of whether you like it or not.

If that billion-to-one odd should come up and see you actually exposed to a dirty bomb attack, you’d be popping those pills like they were Tic Tacs.

In the future, you can avoid looking foolish and attracting so much ridicule simply by commenting on what I actually say instead of what you think I might have said.

I’m sure you now realize the enormity of that blunder.

[quote]I still don’t know what Bh6 was talking about. I know a little about first responding. He still hasn’t clarified.

The response to a conventional and dirty weapon is VASTLY different.

I think BH6 realizes he made an error.[/quote]

I’d be interested in knowing how many people care for you to speak for them.

I bet it’s a very small number. I’d be surprised to see BH6 among it.

I’m sure you now understand how presumptuous you come across.

A man would realize his error and apologize.

You won’t.

83

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Does anyone here actually think I’m dishonest?[/quote]

Does anyone not see you’re not?

You demand people follow immature rules, but then refuse to submit to them yourself.

Before engaging in “debates”, you demand they agree to “bets” or “promise to post retractions” and “admit error” as if adults had to engage in discussions while submitting to high school locker room rules.

You dog people who make a mistake until they “correct” their erroneous statement, but again refuse to do the same when you’re the one making the mistake.

You keep bringing back month old and year old stuff from ancient threads to somehow claim an advantage in a completely unrelated thread. As if no one was allowed to make a mistake, or to change their minds.

You use people’s geographic location as arguments against them, as if anyone not living in the US was apparently incapable of holding a valid opinion.

You keep repeating tired, oft-debunked arguments about various issues, ignoring any dissenting facts or more recent findings.

During discussion, you’ll ignore any point you’re unable to address; never concede that an opposing point of view might have some merit. You’ll simply concentrate on whichever point you think you can “score” with.

I’d be hard pressed to find a single thread where you were honest even most of the time.

Any other questions?

I agree.

84

[quote]JeffR wrote:
pookie wrote:
Sifu wrote:
I think some of you are really missing the danger of a dirty bomb. The potential loss of life isn’t the only issue to consider.

Rendering a couple dozen blocks around New Yorks financial district uninhabitable would be a serious blow to the economy.

I don’t think anyone is trying to downplay the seriousness of a dirty bomb attack.

What most of the reasonable posters are trying to say is that informing the public about the real, actual risks might lessen the panic and save more lives, than the approach favored by Jeff, which appears to be to exaggerate everything out of proportion. Jeff is angry because no one agrees with him that a dirty bomb attack is a lesser catastrophe than the detonation of a low-yield nuclear weapon.

Dirty bombs are generally referred too as weapons of terror or of mass disruption, because they create fear and panic out of proportion with the real risks they represent.

Educating the public properly about those risks would lessen the terrorizing and panicking effect of such an attack. Instead, authorities play on those fears to reduce civil liberties and grab more grant money; while the media exploit them to get better ratings.

Somehow, some think we should be applauding these actions.

Not what I said at all.

Nuclear weapons would be more catastrophic.

However, it is YOU who made that statement, “Just take some iodine pills.”

It’s YOU who is blowing this off safe in your pseudo-french cocoon.

It’s you and renny (who quoted things more likely to kill you) who need a sense of perspective.

Oh, if you read this thread, you’ll find people who are agreeing with me.

I still don’t know what Bh6 was talking about. I know a little about first responding. He still hasn’t clarified.

The response to a conventional and dirty weapon is VASTLY different.

I think BH6 realizes he made an error.

JeffR

[/quote]

JeffR, we have a sense of a perspective. How is this for perspective: Since 9/11 nearly 100 000 Americans have been murdered. Yup, you read that right. or maybe this would interest you:

According to the last two available years of FBI statistics (2004 and 2005):
â¿¢ 32,840 murders occurred in the United States.
â¿¢ Victims reported 818,592 robberies in America.
â¿¢ 1,710,328 aggravated assaults were reported in the U.S., 289,106 of which involved the use of a firearm.
â¿¢ The nationâ¿¿s violent crime rose by 2% in 2005, the first increase in 13 years.

So, who is the one that lacks perspective? Oh, sorry, I forgot, you are too busy shitting your pants over dirty bombs.

85

[quote]BH6 wrote:
Sifu wrote:
I think some of you are really missing the danger of a dirty bomb. The potential loss of life isn’t the only issue to consider.

Rendering a couple dozen blocks around New Yorks financial district uninhabitable would be a serious blow to the economy.

If several other major cities were to be hit simultaneously the economic effects could be massive.

The American economy is the engine that drives the entire world economy. The full damage from a dirty bomb attack might not be immediately felt, it could be something that slowly crept it’s way around the world.

Those who think that a dirty bomb attack is no big deal are not thinking about the big picture. Anarchist groups like AlQaeda can benefit from the disorder that a worldwide economic collapse can cause.

A dirty bomb isn’t going to render an area inhabitable unless they use something really nasty like plutonium or weapons grade uranium. The blast, most likely small, is going to throw fragments of the radioactive material around like shrapnel. The walls, people, and cars in the fragment pattern are going to get the worst of the radiation.

This isn’t a nuclear blast so the radiation is not released from fission or fusion, but instead is released from the material itself. Remove the material and you remove the radiation. Remove it quickly and won’t have to worry about an irradiated area emitting its own radiation.

I am by no means downplaying the threat. If you mention radiation, people freak the f*ck out, but a dirty bomb is dirty, not catastrophic.

Now the detector systems are worth while, in my opinion. If you can prevent the stuff from getting into the metropolitan areas for a couple million dollars than good to go. Stopping a dirty weapon is wayyyy easier than cleaning it up. I don’t think there is anyone on the NYPD or NYFD that would argue that point.
[/quote]

Admittedly it would not be the same as a nuclear blast. The real danger would not be from shrapnel it would be more from pulverizing the radioactive material into a fine dust that would go everywhere and get into everything.

Yes people would freak out. Noone would want to go back into that part of town and even the surrounding area. Do it in a high rent area like New York and you would render some of Americas most valuable real estate worthless.

If there were several of them in different cities serious damage to the economy could result. This what AlQaeda is looking to do. They aren’t half stepping just trying to kill a handful of people here and there. They are looking to destroy America as a world power.