Homeland Security Watch

Comment by William R. Cumming

March 7, 2011 @ 12:16 am

Good article Arnold and post! I think there is substantial agreement with you point of view. Perhaps the RDD threat is overstated. Cesium 138 has been identified as one source term that might be fairly readily available for an RDD-Radiological Dispersal Device.

Comment by NYC and RDD

March 7, 2011 @ 4:39 am

I have often worried about NYC and RDD. I know NYPD anti-terrorist unit deserve many kudos in their keen diligence in commitment to their many tasks 24×7, yet this RDD scenario and its aftermath will continue to be a substantial concern for those that serve us daily and we very much appreciate their professional and personal dedication to protecting those of us on Main Street USA who are going about our lives often oblivious to the bad guys walking among us – thank you!

Comment by J.

March 7, 2011 @ 8:37 am

“building a basic dirty bomb is not difficult.”

Maybe it would be more correct to say, getting components to build a basic dirty bomb is not difficult. Designing and employing an RDD to efficiently cause mass effect is somewhat more difficult. I don’t think heavy metals really disperse that easily, and grinding up radioactive material isn’t a career-enhancing job.

I’m glad to see you address the detection issue as ineffective, but I would caution against an over-reaction in preparing for a response. No one has the funds to prepare for a very low probability event where the feds will no doubt do a good deal of heavy lifting.

Comment by john comiskey

March 7, 2011 @ 8:46 am

Arnold,

The HBO movie The Dirty War, albeit the detonation of a crude nuclear bomb and not a dirty bomb is instructive ….and scary.

See: http://store.hbo.com/detail.php?p=100306

I had the opportunity to train at the National Nuclear Security Administration’s training center in Mercury Nevada. I learned firsthand that although unlikely, a crude nuclear device and more likely a dirty bomb is a remote possibility.

Training a cadre of professionals is one step to deal with either catastrophe. As you suggest, managing the likely public panic should be our first priority.

While participating in NYPD Counterterrorism Operations we often came upon false positive hits that were found to be persons receiving medical treatment.

NYPD as part of the Securing the Cities initiative deploys mobile and stationary radiation detectors with impressive capabilities. They are not, however, full proof and the bad guys would likely take measures to make their devices undetectable ….at least until it is too late.

The good news about an RDD is the explosion would likely negate (blow up) most of the radiation. The larger problem is managing public panic that would likely cause more deaths and injuries.

I return to civic engagement and education. Starting with K-12 education and continuing with public education campaigns we MUST create an educated populace and develop the resiliency to withstand a dirty bomb and the less likely nuclear bomb.

Final point, I conclude that the preferred terrorist use of explosives will remain the mainstay of terrorists in the near term. You simply get the best bang for your buck with a bomb. [pun intended]

Comment by Arnold Bogis

March 7, 2011 @ 5:21 pm

Great points all, thanks for reading the argument.

J, I agree with your points about the difficulty of achieving mass effect, but I was focusing on a more general problem and not thinking about the weapon in military-related terms such as efficiency. My problem was that this was a short piece lacking any explanation of phrases such as “building a basic dirty bomb.” My argument is that the fear of radiation causes the effect, so the degree to which terrorists are able to effectively disperse radioactive material is not directly correlated(though it obviously comes into play long-term–but also linked to fear). So chunks of metallic solid scattered a short distance from an explosion will not contaminate a relatively large area, but the news that a dirty bomb exploded will spread fear. Until it happens, the questions will remain concerning the results of that fear.

In terms of response, I’m not advocating what would be needed in terms of a nuclear incident. Education, basic equipment, and advanced planning that keeps confusion to a minimum would provide a solid foundation. The right type of preparation might prevent cases such as that revealed in the investigation of the 7/7 bombings where fire personnel apparently delayed approaching an attack site due to the fear of a dirty bomb.