this post was submitted on 27 Mar 2026
520 points (98.0% liked)
Not The Onion
21032 readers
553 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, ableist, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Nuclear terrorism might be a thing, but I seriously doubt that the easiest way to do it is nuclear suicide vests. Miniaturizing nuclear warheads is a pain. If you were going to do something like that, you'd be better off doing something akin to a truck bomb.
Much more likely would be a dirty bomb. Just a regular bomb with some nuclear material that it spreads. The nuclear material isn't the bomb itself, but used exclusively for the exposure effects. You don't even need plutonium or uranium for this. There are plenty of other radiological sources to make dirty bombs. Old radiographic medical equipment for instance.
There are hundreds of thousands of orphaned sources in the world. Several of them have caused the worst radiological incidents in history.
The fact we don't see this already is quite surprising.
I'm kind of skepitical of the "dirty bomb" idea. Frankly, it sounds like a load of bullshit, because of the πr^2^ thing. Namely, if you want to irradiate and area to a sufficient extent to cause immediate radiation sickness, then keeping it concentrated is your best bet. A very small bomb, at most.
The other extreme would be a huge bomb to spread radioactive material over, say, a city. At which point it barely raises the radioactivity above background levels. Or at least doesn't cause immediately apparent effects. Imagine terrorists issuing a statement like, "Sure, it doesn't seem so bad TODAY, but wait 'til you see the slight bump in cancer rates in 20 years."
Indeed, on looking it up, I see that the experts are skeptical, too, and tests conducted by Israel didn't find much effectiveness. That could be why we haven't seen one used.
Honestly, the problem with a dirty bomb isn't the cancer rates or w.e, its the sheer amount of propaganda that has gone into scaring people over nuclear energy. Yes, the propaganda is mostly to stop nuclear reactors to force reliance on oil, but its still there.
I used to use a nuclear soil density gauge. The gauge was not at all scary, I could use it as a seat for a whole year, and it would have a minimal effect on my lifetime cancer rates.
But no matter how many times I explained it, as soon as I said "Nuclear Gauge" people got scared.
"Nuclear" has become a scare word, so a nuclear dirty bomb is terrifying to people.