Bharat Rakshak

mirrored from
The Dirty Bomb Distraction
Technology Review Online

Technology for Presidents

June 23, 2004
Terrorists might attack the U.S. homeland again this summer, the Justice Department and the FBI warned last month. The same day, the Department of Energy announced a $450 million plan to counter terrorist nuclear weapons and dirty bombs. And shortly afterwards, the Justice Department released some details about Jose Padilla, the one-time street thug who had received extensive al Qaeda training and had hoped to explode a dirty bomb in the United States. But according to the Justice Department announcement, al Qaeda had doubted that Padilla’s proposal to build a dirty bomb was practical. They directed him instead to blow up two apartment buildings using natural gas. They apparently felt that such an action would have a greater chance of spreading death and destruction than would a radiological weapon.
Al Qaeda was right. Perhaps that should scare you. Al Qaeda appears to understand the limitations of these devices better than do many government leaders, newspapers, and even many scientists.

Our experience with radiological weapons—the fancier name for dirty bombs—is limited. They do not require a chain reaction like fission or fusion weapons, but instead use ordinary explosives to spread pre-existing radioactive material. Saddam Hussein reportedly tested such a weapon in 1987, but abandoned the effort when he saw how poorly it worked. In 1995, Chechen rebels buried dynamite and a small amount of the radioactive isotope cesium-137 in Moscow’s Ismailovsky park. They then told a TV station where to dig it up. Perhaps they recognized the truth: that the bomb’s news value could be greater if it were discovered before it went off. For such weapons, the psychological impact can be greater than the limited harm they are likely to cause.


I don’t mean to suggest that radioactive materials are harmless. Indeed, consider the story of scavengers in Goiania, Brazil, who found and dismantled an abandoned radiotherapy machine in 1987. The machine contained 1,400 curies of cesium-137. (A curie is the radioactivity of one gram of radium.) Two men, one woman, and one child died from acute radiation poisoning; 250 additional people were contaminated. Several of the 41 houses evacuated could not be cleaned adequately and were demolished.

Imagine now if that radiation weren’t confined to a few houses, but were spread over the city by an explosion. Wouldn’t fatalities be higher? The surprising answer is: No. If the radioactivity were dispersed in that way, larger area would have to be evacuated, yet in all probability no specific deaths could be attributed to the event.

To understand the details, let’s walk through the design of a dirty bomb similar to what Padilla wanted to build. I’ll assume the same amount of radioactive material as was in Goiania: 1,400 curies of cesium-137. Radiation damage is measured in units called rem, and if you stand one meter from that source, you’ll absorb 450 rems in less than an hour. That’s called LD50, for lethal dose 50 percent. Untreated, you’ll have a 50 percent chance of dying in the next few months from that exposure.

To try do enhance the damage, let’s use explosives to spread our 1,400 curies over a larger area, say a neighborhood one kilometer square. That will result in a radioactivity of 1.4 millicuries per square meter, and a careful calculation shows that residents will get a dose of 140 rems per year. But radiation illness is nonlinear. For extended exposures, the lethal dose increases by the fourth root of time, to approximately 1,250 rems for a one-year exposure and 2,500 rems for a 16-year exposure. So 140 rems per year is not enough to trigger radiation illness, even if you stayed there 24/7 for a decade. Radioactive contamination may be the one case for which the solution to pollution really is dilution.

There will be no dead bodies at the scene, unless someone is killed by the explosion itself. I suspect that’s why al Qaeda instructed Jose Padilla to abandon the dirty bomb concept and try to plan a natural gas explosion instead.

But even a dirty bomb without casualties could spread nuclear panic, based on the danger of long-term cancer. For doses in the 100-rem range, results from historical exposures suggest the increased risk of cancer is about 0.04 percent per rem. That’s a 6 percent increase in your chance of dying from cancer for each year you spend in the square kilometer. If the radioactivity were spread over a larger area, e.g., a 10- by 10-kilometer square, then the dose would be lower (12.6 rems per year) and so would the added risk of cancer: 0.06 percent per year of exposure. (I am assuming, conservatively, that risk is proportional to dose, even at low doses. With such contamination, would I evacuate my home? Not if I were allowed to stay. To me, the increased risk—from the pre-existing average risk of cancer of about 20 percent per year to, say, 20.06 percent—is not significant.

But I wouldn’t be given the choice. The exposure of 12.6 rems per year is 126 times more than the yearly limit allowed to the public. In fact, the Environmental Protection Agency decontamination standard is 0.025 rems per year, meaning that 98 percent of the radioactivity would have to be removed before I would be allowed to return to my home.

In the September 11 attacks, the terrorists took advantage of U.S. policy and prejudices. They knew they didn’t need guns to take control because pilots had been instructed to cooperate with hijackers; nobody expected hijackers to turn planes into weapons. Similarly, a terrorist today might use a radiological weapon, not because of its actual damage, but in anticipation the out-of-scale panic and ensuing economic disruption that the weapon could trigger.

Could other radiological attacks be more potent than our hypothesized cesium-137 example? Electrical generators powered by the decay of radioisotopes, found in abandoned lighthouses in Russia, held 400,000 curies of strontium-90. But strontium-90 emits virtually no gamma rays; it is harmful only if you breathe it or ingest it. A cloud of aerosolized Sr-90 can kill—but it does not stay in the air for long. For the same reason, even a radiological bomb made using plutonium is unlikely to be dangerous. Anthrax would be deadlier, and much easier to obtain and transport. Nuclear waste storage facilities and nuclear reactors contain vastly more radioactivity, and the danger from them is substantial, if their radioactivity can be released.

If small dirty bombs threaten so little harm, why are they lumped in with true weapons of mass destruction? The reason is: it’s the law, as written in the 1997 National Defense Authorization Act (Public Law 104-201) and other places, including California penal code 11417. Defining them this way was a mistake that could lead to misallocation of resources and a general overreaction if such weapons were used. I hope, and expect, that most of the $450 million to be spent on the anti-nuclear initiative announced last month will be used to protect us from nuclear explosives and attacks on nuclear storage areas, and not specifically from radiological weapons.

If terrorists do attack this summer using a dirty bomb, the resulting death might come from automobile accidents as people flee. Dirty bombs are not weapons of mass destruction, but weapons of mass disruption. Their success depends on public and government overreaction. Beware not radioactivity but nuclear panic. The main thing we have to fear from a dirty bomb is fear itself.

Manish_Sharma wrote:
It is you who is a pathetically butt-hurt jerk.

You had left this forum in a huff BUTT-HURT and joined DFI. If I remember correctly you had told Rohitvats that you are not coming back. But you crawled back in, nobody asked you to come back.

With pathetic excuse of BRF should be modeled like DFI, but you were totally rejected. And shamelessly you pathetic beggar had no choice but to stay.

I quoted usuf on his thread and opposed him but he never answered. I had made it a point to put it on BRF as soon as its up.

Its your personal view that BRF is like a personal club, you had wrote this in response to Sanku, and I quoted and threw that post on your face when you crawled back in from DFI to BRF saying BRF is like a private club. We should be open.

Usuf wrote:
I have a different take on how India should respond to a Pakistani first strike.

India does not have to respond with nuclear weapons to a Pakistani nuke strike.

------------------------------------
My Take:

It seems the writer Usuf is more worried about deaths of porkis. While casually drawing a picture of Delhi and Mumbai obliterated. It does not anger him that the Nation Bharat that has fed him, educated and gave oppurtunity to rise and prosper GETS NUKED by suar porkis.

Usuf wrote:
I have a different take on how India should respond to a Pakistani first strike.

India does not have to respond with nuclear weapons to a Pakistani nuke strike.

------------------------------------
"Tripurantak wrote" :

It seems the writer Usuf is more worried about deaths of porkis. While casually drawing a picture of Delhi and Mumbai obliterated. It does not anger him that the Nation Bharat that has fed him, educated and gave oppurtunity to rise and prosper GETS NUKED by suar porkis.

Imagine Delhi and Mumbai 2 cities and surrounding area of 5 crore population dead, and Bharat's army moves to dismember porkistan that that land of inbreds marrying their own cousins and producing retarded inbred race don't get to face the radiation like us Bharatvaasis?

While such a big disaster has happened army will move to porkis as nothing has happened its supply lines unaffected and all.... waah kya baat kahi. Clap!

And what will dismemberment get us. Same as those inbred perverted bhooka bangladeshis did, burn our BSF jawaans alive during Vajpayee regime.

Same 4 - 5 muslim nations Baluch, Sindh, Punjab & Pakhtunkhwa will be doing.

Retardedness of the idea is that you take a bottle of poison wash its lable "pakistan" off. Divide the contents of the same bottle in 4 smaller ones with new lables AND THEN drink it down you will be all right. 'Poison' won't effect you. Haa haa genius Usuf.

This is how probably ISI's ghazwa e hind branch thinks.

Pakistan & Bangladesh muslim population was 6 to 7 crore in 1947 at partition time.

In Bharat muslim population was around 4 crore at that time.

Now porkis and bangladeshi populations are around 36 to 38 crores. That means growth of whopping 8 to 9 times.

After dismemberment bangladesh remains enemy to Bharat.

Same will be from dismembered porki nations.

Another weird thing Usuf says is that we can't obliterate the whole pakistan with nukes, so why use, just using conventional gola barood kill all porki army + those enemies inside porki land. THAT IS ALMOST WHOLE OF PORKLAND !!! How can conventional ammunition achieve what nucler can't?

And enemy china will be laughing seeing Bharat losing 2 biggest cities and weakened considerably.

Nope it seems under the garb of well wishing, Usuf is trying to save big chunk of muslim population on Bharatiya Upmahadweep.

Our nuclear retaliation should be on the dense part of population on this map:
http://www.bestcountryreports.com/media ... st_Pop.jpg

And pop goes porkis. And then we should also nuke Bangladesh as a weakened nuke Bharat will be easy prey for them too to eat up and mischief in our eastern borders.

Manish_Sharma wrote:As promised to Ramana ji, no more on this from me.

Here is the link to the page where I posted, my poster name is "Tripurantak" :
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/thre ... st-1182332

This is the first page of that thread started by usuf himself :

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/thre ... ike.35091/

Manish_Sharma wrote:
This is the first page of that thread started by usuf himself :

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/thre ... ike.35091/

To take into consideration the above and the prevailing threats, review of the Indian nuclear doctrine is most urgent.

*We have already changed our doctrine to no first use against non nuclear weapons state. But this was only via a statement issued by the former NSA. India will have to put it down in the revised doctrine or even totally do away with no first use as speculated although there is no need if NFU against NNWS is declared.
*Use of any other form of weapons of mass destruction like chemical or biological weapons by nuclear or non nuclear weapons state against India to be retaliated with nuclear weapons
* Article 2.3 of the nuclear doctrine states that such states shall be deemed nuclear weapons states if they ally with or assist nuclear-armed states against India, and/or assist them during hostilities. India can be more clear and explicit about this especially because of the threat the China-Pakistsn nexus poses for India, China’s proliferation to Pakistan and continues supoort to Pak nuclear program. India can declare that any nuclear weapons use by Pakistan against India will be seen as an attack by China and will be dealt with accordingly. This will force China to make Pakistan stand down from its reckless stand on nuclear weapons.
*Pakistan has started making battlefield nuclear weapons also known as tactical nuclear weapons. These weapons are aimed at stopping an armoured thrust into Pakistan by Indian Army in response to a terror attack like 26/11. Under current doctrine, it calls for a massive retaliation which means a counter value strike on its population center which will invite a similar strike by Pakistan on Indian cities. India will need to adopt a caliberated approach in this regard.
*There is a clear danger of nuclear weapons or radioactive weapons falling into the hands of Jihadis in the context of Pakistan or terrorists at large. This could be with active connivance of state actors wanting to maintain deniability. While that is uncertain to establish, it does not absolve state actors for explicit, implicit or negligent actions. Such actions should be punishable including punitive nuclear strikes on the enemy’s nuclear,terror and military infrastructure that aided these terrorists.
*India should shed its ambiguity about numbers and weapons yield and announce what it considers as a minimum credible number of nuclear weapons and its yield. This will let the enemy what it faces if it dared to strike India with nuclear weapons instead of a vague “unacceptable damage” postulation. It also serves to assure the Indian people about the credibility of Indian nuclear weapons. The number of nukes considered minimum credible is subject to review based on threat perception.
*Regular exercises by SFC, leadership and others involved to maintain operational readiness of the nuclear strike force under all circumstances including the breakdown of leadership and command structure in the event of a crippling first strike on India that wipes out its civil and military leadership.
*To keep the nuclear forces in a ready state by mating the warheads with the missiles and dispersing it across the country and on sea/undersea platforms.
*Preparing SOPs, command, control, communication systems for launch of nuclear weapons when India starts to keep its nuclear forces in a ready state.
*To continuously strive to create new weapoms designs and maintain the efficacy of warheads and missiles.
*Strive to strengthen the underwater arm of the nuclear triad with development and induction of intercontinental range submarine launched ballistic missiles and more numbers of nuclear powered submarines.
* In the event of deterrence breakdown, look to quickly terminate the nuclear exchange. While India may be in a position to impose unacceptable damage on the enemy, but any crippling strike that takes out India’s major population centers will set India back in a major way with implications that may last well beyond the nuke exchange and affect the very foundation of the country with respect to its unity, integrity and sovereignty.

Yusuf Administrator http://www.defenceforumindia.com

India's stated nuclear doctrine is that it's "deterrent" is a no first use and for inflicting unacceptable damage in retaliatory strikes.

I have a different take on how India should respond to a Pakistani first strike.

India does not have to respond with nuclear weapons to a Pakistani nuke strike.

Pakistans doctrine calls for use of nuclear weapons when
1) it looses a major chunk of its territory.
2) it looses a major chunk of its armed forces
3) there is severe economic and political hardship caused by ways of blockade.

Consider an all out war between India and Pakistan. Considering the above, it's most likely to use nuclear weapons when Indian armed forces capture cities like Lahore, destroy a major portion of the Pakistani fighting force.

In this scenario, pakistan has lost already lost the war and our troops are already in control of a lot of Pakistani territory. We cannot nuke our own forces.

In the scenario that Paksitan goes in for a first strike without any provocation or way below its threshold, India should still not retaliate with nuclear weapons.

India should come out with political and military goals for the next war which is likely to happen in the future.

Political goals.

India has to dismember Pakistan. We know of Sindh, Baloch, Pakhtun and Balwaristan movements.

If Pakistan has already gone nuclear and say destroyed Delhi and mumbai, it gives Indian forces free license to use disproportionate fire power to subdue, kill any opposition that comes in its way and together with local sympathetic forces, help them break away from the current republic of Pakistan as it stands. It should install regimes inimical to it and act as guarantor of future security. This means cities like Karachi, Hyderabad, Quetta cannot be nuked as it has people ready to break away from Pakistan and Indian forces will eventually be there. Again any opposition can be brutally suppressed as we have already suffered population losses due to Paki strike.

Military Objective.

Complete destruction of Paksitans war fighting capabilities. We capture/destroy their air assets and naval assets. With the break up of Sindh and Balocbistan, these assets can be provided to the new states under Indian protection.

There is the china factor in all this India clearly has to use the nuclear first strike threat against china for any interference and since we have already suffered a nuclear strike, it will not be prudent for china to interfere as it will have more to lose than India.

India retaliating in a "glass making" contest in a tit for tat attack will not help long term goals. We can kill those against us with guns and with all the brutality without bothering about human rights as we have already suffered population losses.

An Indian response to Paki nuke attack really does not have to be nuclear.

shiv wrote:

Manish_Sharma wrote:
It is you who is a pathetically butt-hurt jerk.

You had left this forum in a huff BUTT-HURT and joined DFI. If I remember correctly you had told Rohitvats that you are not coming back. But you crawled back in, nobody asked you to come back.

With pathetic excuse of BRF should be modeled like DFI, but you were totally rejected. And shamelessly you pathetic beggar had no choice but to stay.

I quoted usuf on his thread and opposed him but he never answered. I had made it a point to put it on BRF as soon as its up.

Its your personal view that BRF is like a personal club, you had wrote this in response to Sanku, and I quoted and threw that post on your face when you crawled back in from DFI to BRF saying BRF is like a private club. We should be open.

Manish Sharmaji please post a link to the discussion on DFI so I can see it for myself.

You stated that you posted your views on DFI, Yusuf did not answer, but others opposed your views, so you came back to BRF and posted your views about a DFI discussion. And you accuse me of crawling back to BRF?

I know that club members often look for support among their own, expecting that their viewpoint will be more acceptable to a cosier group, but sorry I am unable to offer your views support on BRF. I would prefer to read the discussion on DFI and post my views there. You brought the subject up, so I repeat. Please post a link so that I can crawl back to DFI.

RoyG wrote: They are waiting for us to do something. Not the other way around.

shiv wrote:

RoyG wrote: They are waiting for us to do something. Not the other way around.

And every minute they survive they think its a victory..

shiv wrote:
Just want to point out that Yusuf is a friend of mine. Of course if you have a disagreement with him - please keep it on DFI and don't port it to BRF

ShauryaT wrote:It is news to me that India is in the genocide business. The doctrine is counter value targeting NOT annihilation. Counter value is aimed at decapitation of the state, with a specific aim to disable the state to prosecute war. It does not involve a modern day round up and send the people to a gas chamber.

@Yusuf is one of the finest we have. Shame on someone questioning his patriotism just because of his faith. Disagree with his view points by all means but those comments were entirely out of place and all it has done is exposed the accuser's own bigotry.

Yusuf wrote:

shiv wrote:
Just want to point out that Yusuf is a friend of mine. Of course if you have a disagreement with him - please keep it on DFI and don't port it to BRF

Thanks Doc.
Cross posting from DFI

Sir, no point arguing with people who go off tangent. In any case it's the official policy of India to react to a nuclear strike with a massive retaliation.

Two quick points.

1) Pakistan will use nukes if we ingress into Pak which means losing lot of territory. Means our troops may be in Lahore, Sialkot when Pak nukes us. Will we nuke Lahore, Sialkot where own troops have taken control & kill our own troops.

2) Point I made was having a strategic end point to the Pakistan problem. Bravado aside, we know that destroying Islamabad, Lahore, Rawalpindi, Karachi is not going to put an end to Pakistan. 160 million people are not going to be wiped out. Dismemberment of Pakistan, creating buffer/dependent states is how we can do it. In any case the majority problem comes from PakJab which will be land locked if we get Sindh & Balochistan to become independent countries under our protection.

Pakistan ne kitta ke nahi kitta test, magar kehna te si na ki kitta hai (Weather Pakistan tested or not, they had to say that they tested)
Najam's Sidekick states:" Ki matlab nahi kitta, kitta te hai" (What do you mean we did not test, we did test)
Najam Sethi: "Haan kitta hai, chota ja, thusss" (Yes we tested, a small one, <makes a sound which in colloquial language indicates a fizzile>)

ShauryaT wrote:It is news to me that India is in the genocide business. The doctrine is counter value targeting NOT annihilation. Counter value is aimed at decapitation of the state, with a specific aim to disable the state to prosecute war. It does not involve a modern day round up and send the people to a gas chamber.

@Yusuf is one of the finest we have. Shame on someone questioning his patriotism just because of his faith. Disagree with his view points by all means but those comments were entirely out of place and all it has done is exposed the accuser's own bigotry.

What makes the people in this forum assume that Pakistan has a working nuke?
Their nuclear tests were duds, their own commentators have said this.

Amber G. wrote:I have reported this post to admins. The map displayed (with gross inaccuracy wrt to Kasmir) should never be allowed in brf.

Wrong depiction of India's map could bring a Rs 100 crore fine
Please look up The Geospatial Information Regulation Bill 2016 before disseminating, publishing or distributing any geospatial information of India.

ShauryaT wrote:RoyG: Attacks on population centers is part of counter value however it is not killing for killing's sake. Counter value targets for Pakistan is in single digits.

Amber G. wrote:I have reported this post to admins. The map displayed (with gross inaccuracy wrt to Kasmir) should never be allowed in brf.

Wrong depiction of India's map could bring a Rs 100 crore fine
Please look up The Geospatial Information Regulation Bill 2016 before disseminating, publishing or distributing any geospatial information of India.

ShauryaT wrote:RoyG: Attacks on population centers is part of counter value however it is not killing for killing's sake. Counter value targets for Pakistan is in single digits.

Gagan wrote:What makes the people in this forum assume that Pakistan has a working nuke?

RoyG wrote:

shiv wrote: And every minute they survive they think its a victory..

Shiv,

Pakistan reminds me of the black knight from this scene from monty python and the holy grail

RoyG wrote: Countervalue targets in single digits? And you know this how? They have plenty of cities w/ a population over 200,000.

Countervalue is for killing. You are threatening to kill and will kill should deterrence fail. Simple.

Amber G. wrote: (For Pu design, getting Pu is easier (terrorists can steal it from a nuclear reactor) but exploding it requires much sophistication)

Manish_Sharma wrote:
Only someone like you supporter of gurmeet kanwal, mms & tyagi supporting vacating Siachin policy and dismissing the opinion of General Sh. V.K. Singh can give a twist like this.

Only someone like you who opposes massive retaliation policy of Bharatvarsh whilst advocating punitive response can give a twist like this.

Delhi, mumbai nuked means death of 20 to 30 million Bharatvaasis instantly, while don't know how many surronding cities and villages effected by radiation. Watching that many innocent Bharatvaasis dying doesn't boil your blood enough to end pakistan.

But just reading a post with map of pakistani destruction boils your blood to lable the poster a genocider a gas chamberer.

The idea of so many citizens of Bharat dying suffering and still you're thinking about safety of pakistan, but anybody from your circle questioned and you start abusing the poster as genocider?

What do you propose mr. tolerance, that my voice be suppressed violently? I should be jailed for writing a nuke retaliation idea against porkistan? That people like me should be killed?

krodhād bhavati sammohaḥ
sammohāt smṛti-vibhramaḥ
smṛti-bhraḿśād buddhi-nāśo
buddhi-nāśāt praṇaśyati

SaiK wrote:Did anyone read this brilliantly written article?

https://majorgauravarya.wordpress.com/2 ... old-start/

ShauryaT wrote:he doctrine is counter value targeting NOT annihilation.

RoyG wrote:

shiv wrote: And every minute they survive they think its a victory..

Shiv,

Pakistan reminds me of the black knight from this scene from monty python and the holy grail

ShauryaT wrote:Disagree with his view points by all means but those comments were entirely out of place and all it has done is exposed the accuser's own bigotry.

Manish_Sharma wrote:
The question is why so much ANGER at :
1.) Obliteration of porki high density populations areas?
2.) Questioning of certain individuals like gurmeet kanwal, usuf etc.