Dirty bombs really aren’t the issue everyone wants them to be. If you have enough to make a meaningful dirty bomb it’s more rational to refine it and make an actual nuke.
Well yeah, Iran probably could make a nuke today with what they have. The difference is if they did that and shot it at Israel and the nuke fails they would still have a dirty bomb plan B.
They’re just not that useful they were a boogie man to hunt terrorists and later testimony came out that basically said it was all made up to hunt terrorists.
Pretty much yeah, a dirty bomb is usually better used as an actual bomb. If you just want to kill a bunch of people rapidly in terrifying ways then gases are your best guess. Almost all the real bad ones are shit you can just make yourself if you have the base chemicals. Phosgene gas for one is available commercially for industry. Colorless with a benign smell but fatalities are often long after exposure so you could start a pretty rowdy leak in a population center and unless they’re a WW1 vet most aren’t likely to know the smell. You’d have a ton dead near instantly and a lot of people going home and living their lives for up to like 5 days and all of a sudden you get real bad and drop dead kinda out of the blue.
The international response would be much stronger if Iran did something like that. Much like chemical weapons, actually employing such tools brings on unwanted responses.
What’s to stop Iran from just launching a dirty missile at Israel? Wouldn’t interpreting it still cause a bunch of nuclear waste in Israel?
Not advocating for that, but I am just surprised I never see the topic come up.
Whats to stop Israel from doing it is the significantly better question. Iran is concerned about global backlash and Israel is clearly not.
Good question. My only guess is Arab neighbors make them nervous enough to ramp up slowly.
Iran not being the cartoon villain that decades of Zionist propaganda claims it to be.
Dirty bombs really aren’t the issue everyone wants them to be. If you have enough to make a meaningful dirty bomb it’s more rational to refine it and make an actual nuke.
Well yeah, Iran probably could make a nuke today with what they have. The difference is if they did that and shot it at Israel and the nuke fails they would still have a dirty bomb plan B.
They’re just not that useful they were a boogie man to hunt terrorists and later testimony came out that basically said it was all made up to hunt terrorists.
Interesting. So is the harm just completely overblown?
Pretty much yeah, a dirty bomb is usually better used as an actual bomb. If you just want to kill a bunch of people rapidly in terrifying ways then gases are your best guess. Almost all the real bad ones are shit you can just make yourself if you have the base chemicals. Phosgene gas for one is available commercially for industry. Colorless with a benign smell but fatalities are often long after exposure so you could start a pretty rowdy leak in a population center and unless they’re a WW1 vet most aren’t likely to know the smell. You’d have a ton dead near instantly and a lot of people going home and living their lives for up to like 5 days and all of a sudden you get real bad and drop dead kinda out of the blue.
The IR brutalizes its people, but doesn’t treat other countries directly that way
It would be political suicide
The international response would be much stronger if Iran did something like that. Much like chemical weapons, actually employing such tools brings on unwanted responses.