Talk:Dirty bomb

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Public perception of risks[edit]

For the majority involved in an RDD incident, the radiation health risks (i.e. increased probability of developing cancer later in life due to radiation exposure) are small, comparable to the health risk from smoking five packages of cigarettes on a daily basis.<

The math behind this would be lighting up and smoking a new cigarette every 7 minutes for 14 and a half hour a day. I hear getting hit by a train also kills you faster then radiation, we should put that up there too.

These ridiculous comparisons downplay the seriousness of radation and alot of this page seems to do this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.76.94 (talk) 10:18, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What does this mean "inefficiency of early nuclear weapons (as low as 2% or less)" - can someone put this in context? 2% of what? Thanks! Intrigue 16:07, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My understanding was that a fission-fusion-fision bomb was considered a dirty bomb because the exterior uranium wouldn't be heavily consumed in the blast. Does anyone else know more about this? Ckape 05:26, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've seen the word "dirty" chucked about in stuff about nuclear-weapon design - something about having to add a lot of fission material to to fusion bombs because pure fusion is a fizzle. The dirtiness refers to the fallout. I think this FAS article puts it well:

Despite the public hype...there was a serious problem with any weapon based mostly on fusion energy. It doesn't produce a very satisfactory explosion. In uranium fission, 90% of the energy is released as the kinetic energy of highly-charged, fully-ionized fission fragments...With a high electrostatic charge [avg +46]...these fission fragments convert their energy to heat quickly and within inches, producing an intense point source of heat. The resulting blast and fire is the whole point of a nuclear explosion.
In fusion, on the other hand, only 20% of the energy is released as the kinetic energy of charged fusion products...[and] Because of the lower charge [+2 avg], the bremsstrahlung effect, which produces the heat, is much less powerful...the bulk of the fusion energy, 80%, is carried off by neutrally-charged neutrons...very inefficient producers of blast and fire...
But an H-bomb which is designed so that every fusion-produced neutron results in a uranium fission event is very efficient. It not only converts relatively useless neutron energy into blast and fire energy, it also multiplies the total energy release by a factor of ten or more...This dramatic multiplication of yield has proved irresistible to bomb designers, despite the fact that it makes an extremely dirty explosion with vast amounts of lethal radioactive fallout.

(emphasis added) So obvious when it's put that way =) I would guess you've misunderstood: the uranium is quite definitely consumed.

Also see "dirty bomb" here. Kwantus 05:13, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)

The uranium would be consumed but would generate fission products, such as in the Castle Bravo accident. (It should also be noted that Morland is not officially associated with FAS, but that doesn't mean his information is inaccurate). The term "dirty" in this context was always contrasted with "clean"—there was discussion over whether or not one could produce a bomb which had no fallout, but it became clear that, whether possible or not, this was not the path pursued by either the USA or the USSR. --Fastfission 20:52, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

WMD[edit]

Can it be debated that under many definitions, a dirty bomb is a WMD?

You can be sure public prosecutors would calit a WMD if an event occured. Also i question the assertion that the term "entered the public lexicon" in 2002. See, for example, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/12/18/archive/main321759.shtml a CBS story dated 2001. --agr 11:36, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How come there's no info on the Bomb the Nazis tried to build in WWII?

We don't really know if it was a "dirty bomb" or not. We don't really know what they were up to. Hitlers Bombe is somewhat confused on the issue; I'm not sure there would be any benefit to talking about it in this article. --Fastfission 00:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know.. well wait.. they didn't really understand nuclear explosions until after WWII when we used the Nuke on Japan. So I don't think Hitler would have known much about dirty bombs. Simple answer.

Dirty bombs don't utilize "nuclear explosions". Please read this article. --Fastfission 00:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that, to build a highly dangerous WMD dirty bomb you'd need a lot of freakin' time and work. With all that radioactive material for such a WMD, someone would rather just build a radioactive bomb or nuke instead of a fall out bomb. However, if someone were stupid enough to go through with it or wanted to be different, yeah they could make it into a WMD. Dirty Bombs to me are a way of getting people to evacuate an area for good because unlike a nuke that just blows everything away, the radioactive fallout has a half life where it will stay around for some time killing things slowly that stick around it. --Cyberman 17:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but that's just ignorant nonsense. If a dirty bomb went off, you'd have a bunch of guys in moon suits wandering around with geiger counters, vacuum cleaners and shovels and such like. They would scoop up the debris and take it away to be placed into storage. The area would be rendered safe. This tidy up has happened before- countries have had mishaps with nuclear bombs (plane crashes and so forth where the bombs didn't go off, but some of the conventional explosives that comprise the bomb detonated and made a mess).WolfKeeper 00:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed section on how to obtain material and construct a dirty bomb[edit]

This section seemed to be a little too informative. Is it really necessary to have here? 68.115.27.231 (talk) 00:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now I have a name. (HalfShadow), I do not agree with you're practices.C.darksun (talk) 00:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it's verifiable then it can be in the article. Worrying that someone might use the article to build one, is a misplaced worry - because if the information is verifiable, that means it's already published, so it's not a secret. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So what if it's already published? By consolidating the information here you are potentially helping people who would use the information in the wrong way. Telling them what substances can and can't be used bears a striking resemblance to "how to" websites for bomb making, which are illegal anyways. C.darksun (talk) 00:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, because there are just tons of places your average joe can get the materials for one. Wal-Mart has an 'Explosive and Radioactive Isotopes' section now.
No I'm not being sarcastic. Oh wait; yes I am. HalfShadow 00:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand you can order one from Acme. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shhhhut up... HalfShadow 00:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To jump in with the full explanation w/o sarcasm -- the question of illegality does not apply here, since wikipedia is not one person (WP:OWN), wikipedia does not publish original research (WP:OR), wikipedia relies on verifiability (WP:VERIFY), wikipedia is not censored (WP:CENSOR), and wikipedia gathers knowledge irrespective of individuals' preferences (WP:IDONTLIKEIT). And now you'll have to excuse me, I have some shopping to do.... :P Seb az86556 (talk) 00:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ö́ͩͤͩ̎͛͛̏̆ͬ̄͏̧̖͚̹̲͙͝K̨̛̹̼̳͉͚̗̰̥̭̱̳̰̹̦͈͍͈̣̒ͯ̍̔̋̽̒ͧ͂̌̀́ͅÁ̶̩̙̠̉͑̉̂ͫ͌ͧͬ̓͗̍̅ͭ̈̿͐̚Y̵̵̻̪̗̳̗̬̙̬͓̺̗̪̼͕͍̻ͧ͗͌ͤ̎ͦͧ̾̊̇̆ͭ̍̎̽͘͡ ̡̠͖̙͓̞̱̻̤̪̟͎̞̻̖̀ͯ͊ͭ̔̉͌͂͑ͪ͜S̶͎̘͓̺̙̺̻͕͉̝̬͚͖̻͚͍̬͊ͨ̒͗̀Ȩ̹̫̱̦̭̩̼̪̳̲̰̟̞̫̅ͯ̿͛͑͢͜͢͞R̸̢̡̧̠͙̮͉̺͔͚̬̣͇ͤ͊̌͒̂̃ͣ̀͑́Ḯ̧̢̤̖̝̬̺̣̱̳͕̬̊̃́̒̒̅ͨ̊̋̚Ōͩ̆̒͋ͨͯ́҉̵̺̬̱͖̫̮̥̥͍̜͚͉͈̟̭͎̲̥̀ͅU̷͙̻̩͚̟̞̰̰̝͔̪͔̟̲͒ͧ̅̆́ͪ̎̾͟͢Ş̵̦̟̦̻̞͎̪̩͕̩͍̖̮̹̘̊̑̑̏ͦL͐̇̍̒̆̽̔͆̓̍̇̓̽̎҉̴̸̢̫̥͓͈̞̪͍̭̹̤̲̩̭̞̭̰̻͝Y͔̫͙̗̩͔̣̥̥͓̗͍͎͙̏̾̇̇̏̕͞,̡̛̉͐͒͊͑̏ͫ̓̃̒̈́̔͋͏҉̬͔͇̗̖͎̙̥̼̖̦̦͓̘ ̌̐̍͏̧̟̠̠̟̣̘Y̐̓ͪͥͦ͊̊ͦ͋̆͐҉͎̟͙'̢̩̩͍͕̳͈̭͓͍̘̤͍͍̖̫̔̈́͌͆̀ͧ̅̄̍ͧ̈́̐̓ͦ̽̚͠ͅA̴̡̗͎̬̙͔͕͇̘̗͍̳͇̬̖͖͎̍̐͂ͫ́ͥ̔̉̽́̑́͋̾̌̍̊̀͜Ĺ̨ͬ͆͒̐̆ͭ̉͏͉̼̙̺̼͚̳̩̻̟̲͘͝ͅL̴͓̺ͥ̑̓͒́ͤ̋ͦͬ͆̃͜͢ͅ ̠͕̖̥̣͎̟͚̘̦̫̱͙̬̙̃ͬ̎ͬ̂͆ͭ̍̌̏̕ͅͅŅ̵̛͇͈̟̱̘̳̩͇ͨͩ̆ͪ̉ͦ̑̈̾̚͞ͅĖ̸̵̶̼̯̻̐͒̓̆ͨ̓͒ͨ̄͒ͬ̒̓ͧ̚͘ͅȄ̟͔̝̺̠̠̩̬̱̺̻̠͓̪̫̇̊ͩ̽͆̌̈́ͦͬ́͘͞͞ͅD̨̩̟̦͚͓͈̭̯̹͖͕͓͓̥̘̲͂̔̒͂͘͜͟ ̧͍̜̟̭̦͇͓̗̖̼̦͖̝̖̠̲̫͈̟̑ͩͣ̅̎́̉ͮ͐̌ͧ͑̉͛͛̏̒̇͝T̡̢͓͍͔̖̗̠̐͑̐̂͒͌̍͑̾ͨ̏̊̾̄̏̀Ȏ̴̸̺̫̺̰̰̺͎̹̫̋́ͬ̋̂͐͌ͫ̾͒̏̐̓̈́͝ ̟̮̭̭͇̘̗̞̠̮̞͕̗̬͓͎́ͨ͋̆͊̌͘G̑̄̐̆̂̑ͭ̃̈́ͣ̄ͣ͝҉͢҉̥̝̗̣̼̪̙̫͇͎̳̱̝̘̠̠̪Eͯ̊͂̇ͥ̇ͮ͏̶̨͉̬̺̜̜̣̣̜̰̘̬Tͬͭ͊̈̈͆ͤ̚̕͟͏͉͖̯̥̪̤͓͖̖̘̀͢ ̶̡̲̘̫̱̼̩͇̣̪͍̮ͩͦ̃ͤ̈̋̌́A̸̵̝͈̲̭̩̯̞͚͔͈̟̤̳̦͉̙͇̼̒ͧͤ͑̎̔ ̷͉̲͓̹͕̞̗͓̻̟̖͓͉̘̹̆ͯ̄̌̋͑͛̉̌͋͒ͦ̽̔͌͌ͧ̚̕͡ͅĻ̛̬̯̤̮̣̼̹̝̳͑ͫ̃̈́̿ͪ̅͑͗̔ͫ̄̏͠I̡̛̯͙͇̮͉̹̟͌̈̽͆͛̏̿͆ͭ̓͂ͫ͆̅̊ͨ̃̈ͧ͢ͅͅ C.darksun (talk) 01:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

לא הבנתי - wat sê jy? Doo Bilagáana bizaad yáníłti' daásh? Seb az86556 (talk) 01:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now, who can argue with that? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Or, from the 'hood, "Say WHAT?" Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty Bomb Another Term For Improvised Explosive Devices?[edit]

A description of the documentary called Power of Nightmares was posted over at the Penn and Teller board. It appears one user disagrees with the definition of a dirty bomb used by the documentary saying that it's a term used for IED's which are extremely dangerous weapons. However, dirty bombs appear to be a term used by many sources for what this Wikipedia article describes. Maybe take it into account, ask the guy some questions on the board and see what he has to say about the IED argument. You don't have to register on the board or anything and please keep the conversation civil. I'd really love to learn about this debate as well as know if this documentary is actually true.

Penn and Teller message board

Dirty bombs essentially IEDs with radioactive isotopes attached. They are not "extremely dangerous weapons" as WMDs — they, like all explosives, can be dangerous to those in the immediate viscinity, but are not going to be dangerous beyond that range. When people say that dirty bombs are not that dangerous, they simply mean "they are not on a level of danger on par with other WMDs, even though many people assume they are the same as WMDs because they involve radiation." --Fastfission 00:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allegation[edit]

"On 10 June 2002, U.S. officials announced they had a month earlier captured an alleged al-Qaida terrorist named José Padilla in Chicago's O'Hare International Airport. Padilla was subsequently transferred from FBI custody to a military brig in Charleston, S.C. The Bush Administration accused him of planning to set off a dirty bomb. Padilla was indicted on unrelated charges on November 22, 2005."

Given he wasn't even indicted on the same charge, should this have a place in the article. I deleted it once but it was restored. DV8 2XL 23:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that he was held for three years without charges on the mere allegation that he planned to use a "dirty bomb" is an important story, at least in the U.S. The question of whether the government had the right to do this may still come before the U.S. Supreme Court. So I think it belongs as in this article, even if only as a caution that such allegations can be abused. --agr 05:40, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is basically a technical article on a type of weapon. What you are describing is an American political issue, which regardless of it's importance in the U.S. has no place in this topic. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. DV8 2XL 17:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty War[edit]

Accidentally updated before completing edit summary - The bomb is clearly detonated outside the tube station entrance. See http://www.cwgcuser.org.uk/personal/subterra/lu/lufilmtv/dirtywar.htm Nick Cooper 00:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural reactions section[edit]

I think that the cultural reactions section is unnecessary and inappropriate. I do not see how listing every mention of dirty bombs in TV shows, movies and books adds anything to the article or increases understanding of the subject. Also, TV shows, movies and books have not made much of an impact on society's view of the subject. Dirty bombs have simply been used as a topical plot device. -- Kjkolb 08:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. There is a documented disparity between what is scientifically known about RDDs and what the public perception of them is. Their appearance in a fictional context both reflects and (often) reinforces this. Nick Cooper 09:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shielding[edit]

It should be noted that the section about shielding an assembled dirty bomb is applicable to dirty bombs made with beta sources. A dirty bomb made with an alpha source (plutonium-239, polonium-210) wouldn't necessarily require shielding to keep from killing the people carrying it.

dirty bombs dont exist[edit]

i've seen several studies and documentaries on dirty bombs, all of them talk about how dirty bombs are a load of shit. There was a whole special on BBC about it. I'll start citing shit but im kinda busy right now. Anyways, basicaly, the russian and US governments couldnt even get a dirty bomb to work, because they both liked the idea of having a conventional bomb laced with radioactive material, it'd be cheap and effective, but both soon found out it didnt work. The radioactive material gets spread too thin and you'd have to sit there for something like 70 years in order to get really bad radiation sickness.

so we need a section on this whole topic, because i dont see it anywhere, and thats just ridiculous

-chimaster

OTT?[edit]

Should you really be so graphic in "obtaining the materials used to make a dirty bomb"? You may as well list the recipe. I'm sure that 90% of the people who view this page now have a great idea of what they'd like to blow up over the next few weeks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.144.48 (talk) 21:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That does seem like a bad idea. Any of you Wikipedos want to delete it?69.3.47.71 (talk) 04:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-reverted deletion of this section. This is Wiki and we cannot get stuck in pointless discussions about "can anyone make this change, please?". Pamejudd

See WP:NOTCENSORED. Thanks. --John (talk) 14:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Not censored. And it's not written in how-to style either.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, what's the informative/educational value of this paragraph? It's not the matter of censorship, but complete uselessness of this information (at least for normal people, not some Internet weirdos) Pamejudd (talk) 14:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)pamejudd[reply]
Thank you for sharing your opinion. I do not agree with you. The information seems relevant, appropriate, properly written and verifiable. Why do you think it is useless? --John (talk) 15:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because I don't think it's necessary e.g. to point out the examples of substances that might potentially be used for constructing dirty bomb. I'll ask again: what's the purpose in publishing such information on Wikipedia? Pamejudd (talk) 16:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)pamejudd[reply]
By far the most dangerous bit of a dirty bomb is the explosive. I don't see any point in censoring the wikipedia in this case, and the material is notable.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 18:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

an experts touch needed?[edit]

Is the dirty bomb as portrayed in popular culture cliche, or has the downplaying-response become cliche?

"Most RDDs would not release enough radiation to kill people or cause severe illness - the conventional explosive itself would be more harmful to individuals than the radioactive material."

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/dirty-bombs.html

What is it that makes dirty bombs so unlikely? Is it simply the rarity of the elements? Aren't radioactive substances as deadly as, say, chemical weapons? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leroyhurdfan (talk • contribs) 23:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The most dangerous bit is the explosive. Dollar for dollar, terrorists are better off with explosives and not bothering with radioactive materials at all. Even if they decide to use radioactive substances, if you were nearby when it went off, chances are if you survive the initial explosion, you're likely to make it.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 18:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does the Jose Padilla/Binyam Mohammed dirty bomb plot merit its own article?[edit]

Does the Jose Padilla/Binyam Mohammed dirty bomb plot merit its own article? I added a paragraph about it today. Frankly, however, if all that has been published about that alleged plot were stuffed into this article it could overwhelm this article.

If it merits its own article should it be called something like alleged al Qaeda dirty bomb plot? Or simply dirty bomb plot?

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 14:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC) hi[reply]

As of 12-24-2008, no dirty bomb has ever been found or used.[edit]

This is wrong, many "failed" dirty bombs have been found and one was even used in london (semi-worked, didnt do any damage really). shouldnt this be edited out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vardøger (talk • contribs) 00:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Dirty" contrasts with "Clean"[edit]

A retired Rocky Flats engineer explained this, as follows:

A clean weapon will explode but not result in radioactive contamination because the radioactive material fuses in a complete fission reaction. (So a different is formed). A dirty bomb will not undergo complete fission and will result in radioactive by-products. Prior to the end of the Cold War "dirty" wasn't used because all nuclear weapons were dirty. WWII weapons were dirty, which begs the question, "What makes the two different types, different?"

Absolutely pure material is required for a clean bomb. Impure material comes from different places and is used as input to a refining process. Done correctly, this yields pure material which is used as the fission material in a clean weapon. Neither bomb type is speculative.

An analogy exists in combustion, not in the physics but in the "cleanliness" of the reaction. Complete combustion results in Carbon Dioxide and water -- no carbon residue, no carbon monoxide or the other by-products we see coming from most things that burn.

An article about the refining processes, where they are, and what they use is out there. I'm thinking it was in Wired Mag but am not sure. Only a handful of countries with the ability to refine plutonium exist and there are only a few ways of doing it. Effectively. Kernel.package (talk) 00:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it only a "Speculative" Weapon?[edit]

I see that the article essentially describes Dirty Bombs as theoretical or speculative weapons, i.e. that something that has never really been built and detonated. But while reading the article on the Dugway sheep incident, which is about an accidental killing of thousands of Sheep by chemical weapons testing at a place called the Dugway Proving Ground, it states that "There were also tests at Dugway with other weapons of mass destruction, including 328 open-air tests of biological weapons, 74 dirty bomb tests, and the equivalent of eight intentional meltdowns of nuclear reactors." (emphasis in bold added). This would seem to suggest that the US Army actually has built and detonated Dirty Bombs in order to test them; I would think this fact is pretty important, but it's not mentioned in this article. Shouldn't it be? --Hibernian (talk) 00:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since it was tested, it is no longer hypothetical. But it was never used in practice so far. My very best wishes (talk) 15:03, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Radiation health risk?[edit]

"For the majority involved in an RDD incident, the radiation health risks (i.e. increased probability of developing cancer later in life due to radiation exposure) are small, comparable to the health risk from smoking five packages of cigarettes on a daily basis.[16]"

is this a typo? it seems to be saying that smoking five packs of cigarettes a day poses a SMALL risk of cancer? I thought it was accepted medically that smoking 100 a day gave a high risk of cancer. If it means the risk from the radioactive material in tobacco, not the other poisons in the smoke, maybe it should say that? ix 82.14.49.10 (talk) 10:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.14.49.10 (talk) 10:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it. Inhaling dust with radioactive particles in a site of contamination can make a lot of damage to your health. My very best wishes (talk) 15:13, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dirty bomb. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dirty bomb. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:57, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heardhat perhaps Nazzi Germany tested a "dirty" bomb Had plans to bomb New Yorks City during World War 2?[edit]

There have been TV reports on A Nazi war project "Amerika" Bomber that could reach New York City From Germany> It was suppossed to cary a Dirty Nuclear Bomb to drop on New York! More data on this would bve appreciated! Thank You! TheStilletoKid (talk) 02:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Dirty bomb. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:41, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dirty bomb. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to merge Improvised Nuclear Devices into this page[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
(non-admin closure) To not merge, given that these are distinct topics; articles should be better linked through see also. Klbrain (talk) 09:07, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I propose merging Improvised nuclear device into this page, since it is a semi-duplicate of this page. MtPenguinMonster (talk) 10:53, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support A lot of the IND article is worded very speculatively, lots of "could be" in there. About half of the sources use the term "dirty bomb" anyway, so I see no need for this article to exist right now. Should be relatively easy to merge. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:01, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Against Based on the content of "Improvised nuclear device", an IND is a nuclear weapon whilst a dirty bomb is just a bomb having radioactive materials attached to it. But the IND seems to contradict itself. In the "Types" section it states that one type of IND is a dirty bomb. But this is false based on their own definition and based on what is found in "dirty bomb" page. Thus, I suggest not to merge. Instead I suggest first to correct the "IND" page by removing its contradictions and by providing more information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.236.132.99 (talk) 08:42, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There can be many different types of improvised nuclear devices, not only dirty bomb. Dirty bomb should be a sub-page.My very best wishes (talk) 19:40, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Radiological weapons and Nuclear weapons are very different, them being seperate makes sense ZeRocky (talk) 22:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Do it. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:46, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. These pages share similar information and, as Grnrchst mentioned, some sources for the IND page also ention dirty bombs. However, there is a distinction to be made in IND and dirty bombs.
A dirty bomb may be an improvized nuclear device, but can also be manufactured. It is defined in its explosives, not the methodology of its production.
IND's are just improvized nuclear devices, and they do not require any alternative explosives.
TLDR: A dirty bomb is defined by the materials used in production (nuclear explosive and a non-nuclear explosive) while INDs are defined by the method of production (improvised).
Since these terms are distinct from eachother, and measured by different qualities, they should not be merged. However, the IND article does need some expanding.
I suggest adding "See Also:" links on either page, directing to the other, and possibly explaining the distinciton between the two terms on the corresponding pages. Becquerelite (talk) 01:10, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Differences between dirty bombs and fission bombs" chart[edit]

The chart that's titled "Differences between dirty bombs and fission bombs" mentions things like "Sphere of fissile material" and "imploding shock wave". While these are all elements of a fission weapon, there is another type of fission weapon out there. The keywords mentioning "sphere" and "imploding" imply an implosion-style weapon (like the bomb dropped on Nagasaki), there is also the less common "gun-barrel assembly" weapon (like the weapon dropped on Hiroshima). Rather than compressing a fissile core, it launches a sub-critical piece of Uranium towards another, sub-critical, Uranium mass to create a critical assembly.


TL;DR: Should it be made clear in the chart that implosions are not the only way to detonate a fission bomb? Gøøse060 (talk) 14:26, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply] 

2A00:1FA0:4140:5E32:177D:6A33:2E34:D1B4 (talk) 02:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dirty_bomb&oldid=1204722116"