First, is it even possible?
The answer is yes, absolutely. There is enough (non-weapons grade) spent civilian nuclear reactor fuel to get enough radioactive materials. Much more importantly, there is plenty of “know how” amongst Ukrainian scientists and engineers. Besides, bringing in radioactive materials or specialists is something the AngloZionist Hegemony could do. Did I mention plenty of starry-eyed Ukronazi politicians daydreaming on camera about how to nuke Russia and kill as many Russians as possible?
https://thesaker.is/a-few-thoughts-about-the-dirty-bomb-thesis-and-the-role-of-hatred/
Real nukes are ridiculously hard to get to ignite. It's easy to blow up nuclear material, hard to get it to do fission and turn that small explosion into a big one.
When Ukraine left Russia, they took with them all of the military assets that Russia had deployed on the frontlines with Germany. That meant a lot of nukes. However, Russia had the nuclear codes, and the nuclear scientists, who knew how to make those nukes go "boom". Ukraine did not have that.
You may think figuring out how to get a nuclear bomb to go "BOOM" is pretty easy. I can tell you, as someone who studied physics, that yes, on paper it looks really easy. I have my suspicions that they do not publish the real numbers or real information you need to build a real bomb. The data they do have will make it look like you are building a bomb when in reality you are building a very expensive bomb-shaped device.
...this has nothing to do with a conventional nuclear weapon...
No, a dirty bomb doesn't.
I don't even know if dirty bombs are real. Like, we hear about them in the newspapers, but so much of what we heard about during the Cold War was smoke and mirrors. It's all lies and propaganda.
Would a dirty bomb have the effect predicted? My training says "No." Spreading a bunch of nuclear material around will probably make people healthier.
"Dirty bombs" are as real as you want them to be. There is not much military purpose in having one, so not much effort has gone into actually making them. The active ingredient is a bunch of highly-radioactive isotopes that can be wrapped around a chemical-explosive core. The detonation will expel the isotopes in a cloud of particles, which will settle down over everything as radioactive contamination. If people stay away from the contamination, they will probably be okay. (Hormesis might indeed make them better, but there is no control over this environment.) The scanty utility lies in the disruption of normal civilian activities and the peskiness of clean-up afterward. The military value is low to the point of being negative (more trouble than it would be worth), so it could only be a terror weapon or sabotage play.
With what we learned from Chernobyl, exposure to medium levels of radiation has no effect. There were zero net deaths due to Chernobyl, aside from the firefighters who were exposed to an insane amount of radiation.
...they are a rather ineffective offensive weapon...
...but given its implementation, it could induce mass panic....
...a larger and more realistic threat are "suitcase nukes" which of last count, more than 80 are unaccounted for...
I doubt "suitcase nukes" are even possible.
That's the goal. Create a problem, then beg the Masters to solve it.
If there is a nuclear war, I plan on going outside and taking deep breaths of the fallout.
When my hair doesn't fall out, I'll laugh in Klingon.
I haven't decided whether i'll loot the deceived or not. Maybe I'll just let them starve while my children repopulate the earth.
I'm convinced that "suitcase nukes" are the reason why great things suddenly fade out and go away... like the Supreme Court dealing with election fraud, and the Arizona audit... because somebody will use those suitcase nukes if such things are allowed to go ahead.
So they don't. And we wait.
I had to chuckle at the construction "conventional nuclear weapon." But I think like that also.
...doggy winks...