Are dirty bombs...

[Cruddy]

... a fair and reasonable way to retaliate for the contamination caused by depleted uranium ammunition?

Such contamination affects Kosovo, Kuwait, Iraq and Chechnya.

My own gut feeling is that it depends which side of the fence you are on - and I'm trying to get a pre-emptive argument before it happens.

In other words, I honestly don't know. Your thoughts please?

[Q Classic]

nope. definitely not. hell no.
of course, war isn't very good at finding fair and reasonable solutions to things, no?

[Inverse Icarus]

i was under the impression that depleted uranium was mostly harless, unless you ingest / alter it's state of matter.

[Cruddy]

As I understand it, DU emits mostly alpha particles and is mostly harmless in its solid state.

The problems arise from the destructive powerdering effect when such ammunition impacts armour. You get a cloud of the damn stuff within a couple hundred metres of the target.

Kids, of course, love playing on old armour. Not really a comforting thought, is it?

[Inverse Icarus]

after some quick googling, i believe you may have a valid point about the powdering effect.

i still don't think a dirtry bomb is a just retallation though.

[VetLegion]

Such contamination affects Kosovo, Kuwait, Iraq and Chechnya.

There was also some use in Bosnia.

[GePap]

No, they aren't. of course, the real threat from dirty bombs is very low. Worry more about the regular, non dirty but still kills you kind of bomb.

[Cruddy]

Lots of the answer "no".

A severe lack of reasons why "no".

I don't expect a quick and easy answer on this - I expect it will take a long time to get a reasoned argument why not. However...

Book of Numbers, (maybe chapter 23, verse 33?) ; "Be sure your sin will find you out".

[GePap]

Most of that contamination is out in the field (since in throy, it only contaminated cause it made contact with a hard target) Now, if you decide to blow a "dirty bomb" out in some farmland, then perhaps. but not in the middle of population centers, if the notion you are trying to sell is an eye for an eye.

[Cruddy]

I'm going to think about this one for a couple of days. The gut feeling is clearly "no", but I'm trying to think WHY... or why not.

No GePap, I am firmly in favour of political solutions and negotiation rather than war. I can never think of war as good, or proper, or correct. Sometimes necessary, in the same way amputation is sometimes necessary.

[Cyclotron]

Three reasons why the answer is "no."

1. Violent retribution is almost always bad. End of story.
2. It is still debatable as to how dangerous DU really is. It's certainly far less dangerous than a dirty bomb.
3. Even if DU is somewhat dangerous, it is used against military targets without the intent to spread radiation to anyone. A dirty bomb would have spreading radiation to others as its primary purpose, not as an unintended consequence.

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by GePap
Most of that contamination is out in the field (since in throy, it only contaminated cause it made contact with a hard target) Now, if you decide to blow a "dirty bomb" out in some farmland, then perhaps. but not in the middle of population centers, if the notion you are trying to sell is an eye for an eye.

Much of the combat in these conflicts took place in civilian areas. As far as I know many bombs also carry DU, like the Tomahawk, JDAMs, bunker busters, etc... So bomb sites in urban areas would also have to be counted.

[Jack_www]

FIrst off I dont think many people realize this but a "dirty bomb" is not all that effective and would only effect a very small area, and maybe if is crowed you could get a couple of hunderd of people at most.

As for retaliation for DU polution, first off these were results of wars that were fought that the other side did not start, and they did not do it on purpose.

Terriorist attack unarmed civilians, and often they avoid millitary ones. This to me is sick and dissguesting, and to sugest that terrorist are justified in doing these things is just plain sick and stupid.

[Q Classic]

dirty bomb==used by terrorists to sow discord and fear with the intention of demoralizing a nationstate.

du==used by national militaries to destroy military targets and objectives with the intention of ending the conflict as quickly as possible.

terrorism should never be condoned, as its methods are too brutal and inhuman to people; that's all well and good to the terrorists, who often do not view their targets as humans.

in the heat of any such war, however, as much as we'd all like to be reasonable, it just doesn't happen all that often.

[Sandman]

I reckon that a dirty bomb would be more trouble than it's worth for the terrorist.

Consider:

The bomb container will be unusually heavy, and be emitting radiation, unless it has a shield, even more weight. Thus compromising the stealth of the terrorist.

Since no-one has yet used a dirty bomb, the terrorist will have to devote time and resources to ensuring an effective blast, or risk a failed, substandard or premature detonation.

Acquring and transporting the radioactive material will be difficult and time-consuming, leaving a paper trail for counter-terrorists to follow.

The radioactive material may compromise the health of the terrorist. Not an issue for suicide bombers, of course.

The effect of radiation, apart from a hysterical media, will be rather low, with the survivors of the blast certain to take regular cancer screenings, and the radiation can be cleaned up by any advanced society.