Using dirty nuclear weapons
 

I remember reading somewhere that some of the Allied powers had created a "Cobalt" bomb, a particularly dirty nuclear device. The idea behind it was to halt Soviet armies from marching across Europe in WWIII by creating uninhabitable regions that their troops could not cross.

Well, got me thinking about maybe an updated version of this kind of bomb. What if (and I have no idea if this is possible) we could create a version of that bomb that would only irradiate maybe 1 sq mile for 20 years? This would strike me as being a particularly handy weapon to make dug-in enemy facilities unusable. Consider Iran. Bomb a nuke plant, follow up with a dirty bomb, and suddenly continued uranium production has become extraordinarily difficult.

Assume for the sake of argument no side effects (like wind carrying 1000 miles, wiping out thousands of people, etc). What are your thoughts on this kind of military tactic? Anyone with substantial knowledge on these kinds of things know its feasibility? Discuss plz

Re: Using dirty nuclear weapons
 

[ QUOTE ]
I remember reading somewhere that some of the Allied powers had created a "Cobalt" bomb, a particularly dirty nuclear device. The idea behind it was to halt Soviet armies from marching across Europe in WWIII by creating uninhabitable regions that their troops could not cross.

Well, got me thinking about maybe an updated version of this kind of bomb. What if (and I have no idea if this is possible) we could create a version of that bomb that would only irradiate maybe 1 sq mile for 20 years? This would strike me as being a particularly handy weapon to make dug-in enemy facilities unusable. Consider Iran. Bomb a nuke plant, follow up with a dirty bomb, and suddenly continued uranium production has become extraordinarily difficult.

Assume for the sake of argument no side effects (like wind carrying 1000 miles, wiping out thousands of people, etc). What are your thoughts on this kind of military tactic? Anyone with substantial knowledge on these kinds of things know its feasibility? Discuss plz

[/ QUOTE ]

Your assumptions make this exercise pointless. Anything that would make a place uninhabitable for 20 years is a bad enough thing to have significant side effects.

IMO, such a weapon would clearly violate the Law of Armed Conflict as it violates the proportionality principle.

Proportionality. Proportionality prohibits the use of any kind or degree of force that exceeds that needed to accomplish the military objective. Proportionality compares the military advantage gained to the harm inflicted while gaining this advantage. Proportionality requires a balancing test between the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated by attacking a legitimate military target and the expected incidental civilian injury or damage. Under this balancing test, excessive incidental losses are prohibited. Proportionality seeks to prevent an attack in situations where civilian casualties would clearly outweigh military gains. This principle encourages combat forces to minimize collateral damage—the incidental, unintended destruction that occurs as a result of a lawful attack against a legitimate military target.

Re: Using dirty nuclear weapons
 

No way to contain a small contaminated area? If my assumptions are too constricted (i dont know a whole lot about this area of physics), feel free to bend


And excessive? Well, if our military object is to render dug in facilities inoperable, surely its not overly excessive. I think you might be conflicted cause of the stigma surrounding nuclear weapons, no?

Re: Using dirty nuclear weapons
 

[ QUOTE ]
And excessive? Well, if our military object is to render dug in facilities inoperable, surely its not overly excessive. I think you might be conflicted cause of the stigma surrounding nuclear weapons, no?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

Re: Using dirty nuclear weapons
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And excessive? Well, if our military object is to render dug in facilities inoperable, surely its not overly excessive. I think you might be conflicted cause of the stigma surrounding nuclear weapons, no?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[/ QUOTE ]

cool thanks man

Re: Using dirty nuclear weapons
 

In a country where people are willing to volunteer to become suicide bombers, what makes you think that mere radioactivity would stop them from using the area? It takes days to die from the stuff, you can get a lot of work done in that amount of time.

Re: Using dirty nuclear weapons
 

[ QUOTE ]
No way to contain a small contaminated area? If my assumptions are too constricted (i dont know a whole lot about this area of physics), feel free to bend

[/ QUOTE ]
Without any negative effects to those in the way of the wind? Sounds impossible. Just about any bomb would release the radioactive dust into the air. How else would you get this radioactive weapon to cover such an area?

Re: Using dirty nuclear weapons
 

Having experience in the field, this is near impossible (the 1sq km bomb with limited side effects)in terms of feasability. Winds, ground seepage and other environmental concerns make it impossible to contain the fallout to one isolated area.

You would start with a dense radioactive source area (your orignal target) but over the span of months and eventually years you would end up with a large area lower level source. The larger source would have a reduced strength but would still remain deadly/ disatrous knockon health effects for years as it spread.

Feasibility aside: Nuclear weapons remain purely "strategic political" weapons due to the attached effects and stigma. Attaining basic military "tactical" objectives through their use is both nonproportional and illadvised in that it opens up the attacking nation to retaliation in kind with little room for objection.