Someone edited their post because I didn't have a problem with the first page of this post.

Now I don't have a problem with the second page.

Thanks!

If Bin Laden has nuclear weopons, now would be a good time to evacuate tall buildings.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Barb:
If Bin Laden has nuclear weopons, now would be a good time to evacuate tall buildings.<hr></blockquote>

Not for a while anyway. The two events where potential terrorist attack might come are: 1- the death or capture of Bin and 2- The winter olympics. Unless Bin gets caught (which I doubt but you never know) the next big target is still 4 months away... lots of time! [img]smile.gif[/img]

Well, we are all talking about a nuclear weapon that involves a full nuclear blast. But of course, there are such things as a 'dirty' nuclear weapon. For those not aware of what this means, this is a bomb which is designed to spread radioactivity over a large area without a nuclear explosion.

Now, of course, the radioactive material in this case can be obtained from any hospital radiography department (where high security is not a known practice). All you then have to do is say, grind the radioactive material to powder, strap it to a large bomb and then detonate the bomb from the roof of a tall building. The wind and blast will then spread the 'fallout' over a large area.

Suddenly, commerce is heavily disrupted as people rush to stay away from the city centre. (Well, they won't be able to return anyway).

And the fallout range is going to be proportionate to the height of the building...

Scarey stuff and really quite possible.

[ 11-22-2001: Message edited by: Skunk ]</p>

Skunk, interesting concept. At first I thought you were talking about a neutron bomb (large amount of radiation but in a very small area). The only problem with the type of weapon you discribed is that it would require a very large amount of radiated material to have the desired effect. As the wind blows, the area covered is increased but the overall effect is decreased. Look at a nuclear blast as an exemple. As you draw away from the epicenter, the amount of radiation drops drastically.

Apparently not so much radioactive material would be required.
I found an interesting article on the subject:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>"
Analysis: Bin Laden's 'nuclear threat'
Dirty weapons
Weapons involving radioactive materials can take many forms.
The most accessible for any terrorist is a radiological dispersion bomb, says the CDI.

This "dirty bomb" consists of waste by-products from nuclear reactors, wrapped in conventional explosives.

On detonation the dirty bomb would spew deadly radioactive materials into the environment.

According to some experts, it would be sufficient to explode an old X-ray machine containing cobalt 60 to produce radiation poisoning.

Another feared possibility is the spread of radioactive particles.

Elements such as caesium, cobalt, plutonium or uranium can be oxidised into respirable-sized particles and then dispersed in the environment.

The particles would settle as dust, and be very difficult to detect and clean up, leaving areas uninhabitable.

Thousands of people could suffer short- and long-term effects from the inhalation of radioactive material.

But experts say the ultimate dirty bomb is a nuclear power station which could serve as a target for a terrorist attack.

Crashing an aircraft into the cooling pool that holds the spent fuel, could have a devastating effect on the nearby population and environment.

Recognising the threat, the French military has stationed surface-to-air missiles at key nuclear processing sites in western France as a precaution against airborne suicide attacks and both the UK and US governments have said security measures are being reviewed.
<hr></blockquote>

There is also a psychological effect to think about too. For example, detonating such a weapon in New York's Times Square or Central Park - thus making the area a 'no-go area for years.