Talk:Radiological weapon

message: The paragraph in the beginning referring to the "chocolate bomb" is either a complete farse or poorly written.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.93.140.118 (talk) 14:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Chocolate bomb?

message: Why are Radiological weapon and dirty bomb separate articles? If a consolidation of content is warrented, I'm not sure(Even though i think bunnys could kill us all) which title should be where the article is and which is where the redirect should go. 
Some thoughts: "dirty bomb" is more widely known and used but is also more ambiguous than "radiological weapon" in my opinion. Also, use of the word "bomb" in this case implies that this is a nuclear device -- 
:which it isn't. I also remember this term being used in the 1980s to describe a nuclear device that has extra radioactive material on board. --maveric149
::Radiological weapon and dirty bomb are very different weapons. A radiological weapon is basically a load of radioactive waste (unsuited to making a true nuclear explosive) packed amongst conventional explosives. It's all of the fallout with none of the nuclear explosion. A salted bomb, on the other hand, is a true nuclear explosive that is specifically designed to create long-lasting fallout with its nuclear reactions. I'd recommend taking down the flag on "salted bombs" suggesting the merger with "radiological weapons." --
These are the old definitions. The current definitions are that Dirty bomb and Radiological weapon both refer to conventional explosives mixed with or surrounded by already radioactive materials. The bomb goes off and spreads the radiation. Salted bomb (and the specific example, Cobalt bomb) refer to a nuclear explosive with a casing of potentially radioactive isotopes. For example, a casing of non-radioactive cobalt-59 could be converted to highly radioactive cobalt-60 by the nuclear explosion. The nuke explodes, spreading the now radioactive casing (which produces vastly more fallout than an "unsalted" bomb). 
Conventional, dirty, salted and straight nuclear bombs or devices can be delivered by hand, by truck, from the air, from missiles or any other means. But obviously, a dirty bomb is more within the technological capabilities of non-state actors. 
Right now, both the Dirty bomb and Radiological weapon articles (and their redirects) discuss the same underlying material. (If you doubt, read the articles.) In my opinion, they should be merged. What do you think? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 23:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Merge Dirty bomb and Radiological weapon; they cover the same topic, based on the current use of the term, as the pages show. I agree that Salted bomb should stay separate. Klbrain (talk) 20:41, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge discussion

message: :Iraq under Saddam Hussein is reported to have tested a radiological weapon in 1987 for use against Iran. This weapon was found to be impractical because the radioactive isotopes in the weapon would decay quickly, rendering it useless within a week after the weapon was manufactured. Furthermore, it was found that for the radioactive material to spread, weather conditions had to be ideal. These problems are in general shared by all forms of air-borne radiological warfare.
Is there a source for this?  I'm skeptical, because I've been skeptical of US Intelligence reports since there has been a bit of doubt on they're correctness/NPOV.  So a source would be nice to back this up.  Leaving it in the article for now. --ORBIT 06:17, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Another discussion

message: On a recent episode of 24 (TV series), Jack remotely piloted an unmanned drone (equipped by 
terrorists with a tactical "suitcase" nuke) to a crash-landing.  The bomb did not explode, but containment was breached, and the first responders (non-hazmat firemen) were exposed, presumably to a fatal dose.  The vice president referred to it as a radiological attack, "a dirty bomb," in an attempt to justify a retaliatory nuclear strike.  Could this be mentioned as an illustration of the different types of radiological attacks? --205.201.141.146 21:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episode of 24 

message: I'm fairly certain the "History" section is original research, and incorrect. I am pretty sure they talked about use radioactive poisons within the Manhattan Project as early as 1942, and that the idea of radioactive poisons had almost certainly been explorer earlier in fiction and speculative science. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 22:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: History section

message: "The professional history of radioactive weaponry may be traced to a 1943 memo to Brigadier General Leslie Groves of the Manhattan Project and to a 1940 science fiction story, "Solution Unsatisfactory"[1] by Lt. J. G. Robert A. Heinlein, USN(R)." 
A sci-fi story is "professional"? Really? 146.145.251.34 (talk) 18:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Professional 

message: Perhaps the threat of the possible acquiring of radioactive material by criminal groups would need to be mentioned. Appearantly, there is a serious risk of something like that happening on specific sites on the African continent (Niger and Congo, where Areva operates). Perhaps it should be mentioned so that better precautions can be taken, resulting from mentioning this here. See Atomic Africa documentary
81.246.156.87 (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Global threats

message: Rhotel1 posted this comment in the article:
I moved it to here since it does not seem to belong to the article. --Brandizzi (talk) 01:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved from article to here 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Radiological weapon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051212182203/http://www.ndu.edu:80/inss/strforum/SF136/forum136.html to http://www.ndu.edu/inss/strforum/SF136/forum136.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050919235612/http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1281456.html?page=2&c=y to http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1281456.html?page=2&c=y
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051229201308/http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?content=4232 to http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?content=4232
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified