this post was submitted on 27 Mar 2026
208 points (97.3% liked)

Not The Onion

21024 readers
135 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:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...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
[–] tal@lemmy.today 11 points 3 days ago (2 children)

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.

[–] halcyoncmdr@piefed.social 7 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (3 children)

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.

[–] SwingingTheLamp@piefed.zip 5 points 3 days ago (3 children)

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.

[–] AnchoriteMagus@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Yeah, but destruction and loss of life isn't the point. Terror is. If a dirty bomb was detonated in a city, and it contained enough nuclear material to say, cause a 10% jump in cancer outlooks over a 20 year period, that's not the point.

The point is that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission needs to come out, shut a city down, do all sorts of testing, clean the shit out of everything, and disrupt everyone's lives. The fear is the point, and as a fear-causing weapon, radiation is in a unique class all its own.

[–] SwingingTheLamp@piefed.zip 3 points 3 days ago

For that matter, then you don't need to put any radioactive material in it at all, but just claim it.

[–] dreksob@feddit.online 1 points 2 days ago

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.

[–] BlueEther@no.lastname.nz 2 points 3 days ago

I think the value would be the 'terror' in the general public if a dirty bomb went in downtown in any major US city.

I think that would make for an ideal terrorist weapon for use against the US

Fuck - I'm probably on a watch list again. I think I was flagged post 9/11 for online chat around laptops, bottles of water and vodka. Every flight I took from 2000 to about 2007 I was pulled out and patted down/bag searched/turn laptop on/...

[–] ScientifficDoggo@lemmy.zip 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I'm not that surprised. Radiation poisoning is a special kind of torture for EVERYONE. Shit would immediately invalidate any goodwill or sympathy for whomever uses them.

[–] FartMaster69@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

It would also be dangerous and expensive for the people making it.

[–] Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz 2 points 3 days ago

It also wouldn't be much more lethal than a bomb of equivalent mass. If you're close enough to get a lethal dose of polonium or w/e, you're probably also getting a lethal dose of shrapnel.

[–] DaMummy@hilariouschaos.com 1 points 3 days ago

That's because you're waiting for the other side to do it. Israel has used white phosphorus many times in recent times. There were also those bombs that create such a heat vacuum, they literally incinerate humans with no trace of them left behind.

[–] ThunderComplex@lemmy.today 1 points 3 days ago

Shit now I'm imagining Tony Stark miniaturizing a nuclear warhead and immediately going "this would make a really great suicide vest"