Dirty bombs aren't an issue. You might want to ask yourself why we've never seen one used, especially if you understand how easy it is to obtain the necessary materials. IIRC we've only caught a handful of devices (none exploded). Also we have to consider when it explodes, it just doesn't make enough radiation. It is pretty difficult to generate enough radiation that would actually cause an increase in cancer rates (bombs disperse the radiation quickly, though it does aerosolize it). And then that cancer hits in 20+ years. It just isn't an effective weapon. Sure, it makes for a scary pipe bomb, but at the end of the day it is far more dangerous for the maker and greatly increases the complexity of the terrorist attack (also greatly increasing the likelihood that you get caught before you can deploy).
So a terrorist just gets a slight increase in fear factor, but it doesn't increase deadliness of the weapon, requires a lot more work, greatly increases the chance that they get caught, puts them in more danger, and so they just don't do it. There's too many downsides for only a minor upside. Why do it when you could just make a dozen pipe bombs and put them in trash cans around the city?
Really just think if you were a terrorist and wanted to do damage. There's a lot of things you could do (bunch of rusty nails on the I-5) that just don't happen. They are easy to accomplish, can do a lot of damage, but just don't. Why? Different objectives and just terrorism is extremely rare in the first place. And I'm pretty sure a drilling through feet of concrete and metal in a likely highly monitored site is too big of a hurdle when you can just go to home depot and get some stump remover and some steel pipes.
To add onto this, widespread and cheap is way more effective at generating terror.
The current trend in Kabul are bombs that get stuck onto vehicles by passing motorcyclists using magnets. It’s quite terrifying, since the ease essentially allows terrorists to enact a widespread campaign against civil service and civil society. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/16/world/asia/afghanistan-ma...
Exactly, terror is based on perpetuating the idea that anyone could be the victim of a terrorist attack. That they are simple and easy to do so the FBI/CIA has no chance of catching these "rogue" actors. Dirty bombs just don't fit into a typical terrorist's prerogative. Dirty bombs aren't cheap and can't be made by anyone. It takes a lot of time to collect the materials in a way that isn't immediately noticed.
Terrorists are not known to be the most logical people, to be honest. They are going to try anything that can generate terror in large scale and a dirty bomb is a very, very terrorizing thing to general population.
General population thinks anything with radiation is panic worthy, even though there isn't that big of a deal.
You don't have to be pretty smart to realize that it's a hell of a lot more expensive and requires a significant amount more work to create a dirty bomb vs a conventional bomb. Or rather you don't have to have any intelligence because both those things are physical limits.
... so you aren't arguing the premise there (ie, that dirty bombs are inefficient for terrorists). So your argument is distressingly close to "terrorists would be ineffective if they did [this], so we should ban it to stop them making mistakes". I doubt you believe that, I'm just drawing your attention to the fact you have to attack the premise to get anywhere on this issue.
godelski is arguing that terrorists who can be convinced to try and use dirty bombs will be less effective than if they had chosen other, more damaging, options.
Terrorists who try to make dirty bombs are incredibly likely to kill themselves when handling the material. A dirty bomb in general is ineffective, but sitting around next to highly radioactive material will put you down from your GI tract dying within 1 to 2 days.
Even more likely because you're going to need to powderize the nuclear material. Which is super dangerous. (weighted dosage is higher for internal exposure since it is closer to organs and less "shielding") Radioactive dust is something you really do not want to be messing around with, even if the radioactivity is comparatively low.
1 in 5 Islamic terrorists have engineering degrees (that’s nearly 10x the rate of engineers in the general population) and a further 2 out of those 5 have degrees in Islamic studies. That 3/5 of terrorists and doesn’t include those with other degrees. Suicide bombers are probably patsys, but they aren’t anywhere near the majority.
These people are smart, but are still indoctrinated. Despite the “religion of peace” propaganda, a clear reading of the Koran shows certain duties that cannot be avoided if you accept the premise that (unlike most of the Bible) it God’s exact words and also the final truth. The proof of the pudding is in the eating and the smarter the reader, the more inescapable those conclusions become.
It’s also not a fringe idea. Imagine if everyone in the US or everyone in the EU suddenly started believing suicide bombings of civilians is at least sometimes justified. That’s around the total number of people who actually believe that across the globe (even more believe in terrorism when targets and/or methods are changed).
More generally though, lots of very smart people get indoctrinated into cults every day. If our life history were just a bit different, you or I probably would have joined one too no matter how smart we are.
One of the biggest hurdles in the manufacturing of dirty bombs is that they are made from highly active sources.
You can more or less safely manipulate a plutonium ball to manufacture a conventional a-bomb. But you just can't do it with highly active sources like cesium-137 without a significant amount of shielding during assembly and transportation.
With this kind of source, acute radiation poisoning is a matter of hours, even minutes.
Look around you at the world stricken by pandemic. What self respecting terrorist isn’t pivoting to bioweapons now instead of keeping Black Sunday or The Sum of All Fears on loop in the headquarters (for the life of me I can’t remember the name of the Tom Clancy book where Iran weaponizes Ebola)
> What self respecting terrorist isn’t pivoting to bioweapons
for some reason I find it funny to imagine a terrorist pondering about his long term career plans and prospects.
do they also have stuff like resume driven development?
the terrorist might find some operation ridiculous but does it anyway to make his resume better, that way he can get hired into the FAANGs of the terrorism sector.
So a terrorist just gets a slight increase in fear factor, but it doesn't increase deadliness of the weapon, requires a lot more work, greatly increases the chance that they get caught, puts them in more danger, and so they just don't do it. There's too many downsides for only a minor upside. Why do it when you could just make a dozen pipe bombs and put them in trash cans around the city?
Really just think if you were a terrorist and wanted to do damage. There's a lot of things you could do (bunch of rusty nails on the I-5) that just don't happen. They are easy to accomplish, can do a lot of damage, but just don't. Why? Different objectives and just terrorism is extremely rare in the first place. And I'm pretty sure a drilling through feet of concrete and metal in a likely highly monitored site is too big of a hurdle when you can just go to home depot and get some stump remover and some steel pipes.