3 ms·
> However, building something which squibs, i.e. undergoes a partial criticality and goes bang in a reasonably large but not city-killing way, and spreading a b
by lojack 11y ago
> However, building something which squibs, i.e. undergoes a partial criticality and goes bang in a reasonably large but not city-killing way, and spreading a bunch of radioactive material about, is probably much easier. (This is the 'dirty bomb' thing that was getting the press excited a couple of years back.)
My understanding is that dirty bombs don't even necessarily undergo any nuclear reaction. You don't even need the right kind of material for them. It's just a traditional bomb with radioactive material strapped to it.
- david-given 11y agoMmm... fair point. I'd expect the nuclear bomb to do a better job of vapourising the plutonium than conventional explosives, but I don't know whether that would actually do more damage. Maybe we're better off forgetting about a bomb completely. Grind it up fine, watch while it spontaneously catches fire (plutonium chemistry is weird!), dissolve the plutonium oxide in nitric acid, water down and then drive around the city spraying it into the air in a fine mist...
- mjevans 11y agoThink much more like a grenade; the dirty bomb is looking to use explosives to disperse and 'poison' an area with radioactive contamination.