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/
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.
At first read, that sounds ludicrous, to the point people would question your sanity. It sounds insane to me, honestly. But then there are pictures of the Chernobyl elephant's foot. So it leads one to wonder, how much of everything we've been told is a lie?
I was in college studying physics in the 90s. At the time, the physicists explained that we have lots of good data on low dosage (harmless, and sometimes even beneficial) and lots of good data on high dosage (you're going to die, usually) but no good data on medium dosage. Physicists were asked to predict what would happen, and since the possibilities were "harmless" to "mostly harmless" to "you're going to die", governments chose "you're going to die" to be on the safe side.
So if you ever got exposed to more than a little radiation, the government would put you in a category of people who should not be exposed to any more, which means we get no data on people who get medium doses of radiation.
The great part about the Chernobyl disaster is we not only had a lot of new medium dosage patients, but we got to see what fallout really does. See, in Japan, fallout did almost no damage. This was surprising, but physicists were cautious and warned that it could just be a fluke. Maybe the seaweed that Japanese people eat protected them or something.
But now we know. Medium dosage is harmless. You will not get more cancer. You will not grow a third eye. Your children will be perfectly normal. You will not become sterile.
In the event of nuclear war, nuclear fallout will not create a wasteland. Those who survive the initial blasts will live long and healthy lives. Some of them will get exposed to high levels of radiation and will suffer for it. The rest will be ok.
Yes, you were not programmed from birth by the media to believe that nuclear radiation is harmless. Yes, there is a conspiracy to prevent us from building nuclear reactors -- the SAFEST and MOST ECONOMICAL form of energy, and with ridiculously low levels of CO2 emissions to boot!
I understand. And there were less than expected problems from Hiroshima and Nagasaki (actually recognized in retrospect; there was no going-in experience). But the problem with a dirty bomb is that it would be too easy to walk into a dangerous area unless the blast deposition pattern had been mapped out for safety. Waiting also helps, as the worst isotopes tend to have short half-lives. Gamma emitters, however, are the real problem, since the alpha and beta radiations can be stopped by clothing. There is also the problem of the chosen isotope being biologically active, like iodine or strontium. Don't want to ingest any of that.
Sort of comparable to a "toxic sludge bomb." Messy. Not dangerous if you don't mess with it. A pain in the ass to clean up. Will not produce mutants.
...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.
When in doubt, do some research, anon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitcase_nuclear_device
"The lightest nuclear warhead ever acknowledged to have been manufactured by the U.S. is the W54, which was used in both the Davy Crockett 120 mm recoilless rifle-launched warhead and the backpack-carried version called the Mk-54 SADM (Special Atomic Demolition Munition). The bare warhead package was an 11 by 16 inches (280 by 410 mm) cylinder that weighed 51 pounds (23 kg).
"The W48 nuclear shell is 155 millimetres (6.1 in) in diameter and 846 millimetres (33.3 in) long and weighs 53.5 kilograms (118 lb). It represents the smallest diameter complete, self-contained physics package to be fielded and had a yield of 72 tonnes of TNT (300 GJ). Nuclear weapons designer Ted Taylor has alleged that a 105 millimetres (4.1 in) diameter shell with a mass of 19 kilograms (42 lb) is theoretically possible."
Questioning whether or not "suitcase nukes" exist while assuming nuclear weapons exist as we are taught in school, as we are taught in newspapers, when Nuclear Weapons were placed under Q clearance by Jimmy Carter in 1977, a year Q has highlighted, is missing the forest for the trees.
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.
Maybe this is the specific reason why Israel is last as is mentioned in the Q drops.
Could they be the ones essentially holding us hostage due to the threatened use of suitcase nukes?
This is said to be a backpack nuke to be used by US special forces.
https://files.catbox.moe/og687u.jpg
...that is a very compelling observation...
...your frontal lobe is producing high value thought processes tonight....
...ty...I think it's all the howling...