Ukraine Was Building a Dirty Bomb?

a reply to: face23785

They definitely had them leftover from the Soviet Union days. Not sure if all of them really were 'repatriated to Russia'

That is one way to becoming a terrorist state.

a reply to: chris_stibrany

A "dirty bomb" is nothing more than a means to contaminate an area with radioactive debris.

It is not, in any meaningful way, equivalent to a nuclear weapon.

Technically speaking, you could make a so-called "dirty bomb" out of a blasting cap and a smoke detector.

A dirty bomb is no more powerful, in terms of its explosive force than the potential made available by the high (or more likely, low) explosives used to detonate the device - the "horror factor" (more like the "nuisance factor") of a dirty bomb comes from the level and size of the area it contaminates with radioactive debris.

Not a very effective weapon for a country already locked in a war.

a reply to: chris_stibrany

Our administration is a fool to think that the long range missiles we are giving Ukraine next week won't be fired into Russian territory... Just because zelenski promised he would not.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: chris_stibrany

Our administration is a fool to think that the long range missiles we are giving Ukraine next week won't be fired into Russian territory... Just because zelenski promised he would not.

I don't think we should be arming them in any capacity... But I'd hardly say a 40 mile distance is long range. There are counties in the US that have distances longer than 40 miles end to end.

Ukraine already borders Russia... So they could attack now if they wanted to. Slinging a few rockets on their border area isn't earth shattering dynamic changes.

a reply to: Mantiss2021
Your thinking of terrorist or basement dirty bombs made out of nuclear waste or low enrichment uranium

When the bomb is made with material thats capable of fission it will occure now it won't increase the explosion but you will end up with fission reactions

I highly doubt any country that could make such a weapon is going to it's only useful to terrorist

I have a good idea which is consistent with ATS's long-established fact verification methodology: Why not consult the IAEA's website and see what they say about the Ukraine?

I did several searches outside of the IAEA's site; there are a plethora of sites that talk about the Ukraine having built dirty bombs, however I didn't find any that linked to a report by the IAEA. I searched on their site for same, and came up with nothing. I don't guess I'd personally blame the Ukraine for building such a thing, and there is a wealth of material to do so. I like to research and form an opinion based upon measurable data. There is a report or two on the IAEA's site regarding the Ukraine. Nothing about dirty bombs that I've found. YMMV.

originally posted by: markovian
a reply to: Mantiss2021
Your thinking of terrorist or basement dirty bombs made out of nuclear waste or low enrichment uranium

When the bomb is made with material thats capable of fission it will occure now it won't increase the explosion but you will end up with fission reactions

I highly doubt any country that could make such a weapon is going to it's only useful to terrorist

Sorry, but that is not correct.

For fission to occur, a sufficient quantity (critical mass) of fissile material must be contained long enough for a reaction to develop.

This is why the core of a nuclear weapon is surrounded by high explosives, timed with extreme precision to detonate in a precisely designed pattern. Fail at this, and your warhead will simply fly apart in shards.

The conventional high explosives "squeeze" the fissile core to the point that critical mass occurs, and maintains that pressure long enough for a chain reaction to occur.

In fact, the hardest, most difficult part of designing, and building, a workable nuke is getting the high explosive initiating charge right.


A so-called "dirty bomb", in reality, is nothing more than a "radiological material dispersal device".

a reply to: Mantiss2021

Very true, the true value of using a dirt bomb is to hide the use of regular explosives. Image if a fuel truck packed with something like Pentex is blown up. It would look similar to a nuke going off to the average person, but without the radiological hazard people would know that it wasn't a nuke. Now what if that same truck blew up but was mixed with a radioactive material?

It would have been a good way to show the world that the Russians used a nuke in Ukraine. Good thing that this FF got interrupted. Can you imagine the mess if a country got accused of using a nuke, and evidence pints to that being the case?

a reply to: Guyfriday

The detonation of a nuclear (or thermonuclear) weapon produces multiple, specific, radio-isotopes which will not be generated by the explosion of a "dirty bomb".

No "expert" would ever "mistake" a nuclear weapon detonation for a high-explosive detonation with radiological debris.

a reply to: Mantiss2021

Exactly but that is not the sticking point of my thread, its the fact that they have plenty of 'dirty' stuff around.
Or at least used to.

a reply to: Guyfriday

This is a 'stupid' disclaimer for most audiences, I don't have a horse in this proxy war.

I think Russia was stupid to try and encroach on Ukrainian territories, and I think Ukraine is being used a as puppet by the west.

Both sides are utterly corrupt in their governing structure.

There is no totally virtuous Ukraine defending it's homeland, and there is no totally evil Putin for invading.

Both sides have been fighting for almost 10 years now and no one cared until.....MSM sent in the programming and the brainwashed bots come in here and scream at each other sometime around oh, February. Funny how the documentaries got deleted from youtube around then.

originally posted by: Mantiss2021

originally posted by: markovian
a reply to: Mantiss2021
Your thinking of terrorist or basement dirty bombs made out of nuclear waste or low enrichment uranium

When the bomb is made with material thats capable of fission it will occure now it won't increase the explosion but you will end up with fission reactions

I highly doubt any country that could make such a weapon is going to it's only useful to terrorist

Sorry, but that is not correct.

For fission to occur, a sufficient quantity (critical mass) of fissile material must be contained long enough for a reaction to develop.

This is why the core of a nuclear weapon is surrounded by high explosives, timed with extreme precision to detonate in a precisely designed pattern. Fail at this, and your warhead will simply fly apart in shards.

The conventional high explosives "squeeze" the fissile core to the point that critical mass occurs, and maintains that pressure long enough for a chain reaction to occur.

In fact, the hardest, most difficult part of designing, and building, a workable nuke is getting the high explosive initiating charge right.


A so-called "dirty bomb", in reality, is nothing more than a "radiological material dispersal device".

Where not talking about thermonuclear devices

You can have fission without that infact fission occures in nature tho very rare it dose

If you have material capable of fission It will happen it's not easy but its no where near as hard to get to happen as thermonuclear chain reaction

Just get the amount of material at the right concentration put this in a truck when the truck is where u want it move the material into containment fission will occure and spread it out essentially make another Chernobyl than spread it out as far as possible

My explanation is rather crude compared to how it was described to me but it's basically how a country that only has nuclear powerplants could make the most of what they have for a weapon

originally posted by: Mantiss2021

No "expert" would ever "mistake" a nuclear weapon detonation for a high-explosive detonation with radiological debris.

From the stand point of Propaganda all one would need to show is the radiation is active in the area of a massive explosion. Provide that and the average person (not an expert that can be bought off) will believe that a nuke was used.

In a False Flag Event, it's not about the truth, it's about making people believe that your narrative is true.

a reply to: markovian

I was not talking about a thermonuclear device either.

You do understand that a nuclear device, which I was describing, utilizes fission in an uncontrolled chain reaction release of energy.

A thermonuclear weapon, on the other hand, derives its energy, it's explosive force, from the fusion of atoms. Thermonuclear require much higher internal temperatures and pressures to initiate the fusion process; so high, in fact, that a nuclear fission explosion is needed to do it.


Chernobyl was, essentially, a steam explosion. Due to the incompetence of the reactor crew, and poor design of the reactors itself. the reactor was allowed to go into an over-pressure sittuation, flashing the reactor coolant to super-pressure steam which blew the containment vessel apart and ignited the hydrogen off-gasses, which in turn ignited the graphite structure of the reactor.

But again, the isotopes generated by a nuclear reactor blowing up are quite different from those produced by a b]nuclear bomb detonation...

And "dirty bombs" do not generate isotopes.


ETA: as to nuclear fission occurring in nature, it has only been verified to have happened in the region of Oklo, Gabon, Africa.

And the reaction is estimated to have taken place approximately 1.7 Billion years ago.

Are confusing the process of fission with the process of Atomic decay?

originally posted by: Guyfriday

originally posted by: Mantiss2021

No "expert" would ever "mistake" a nuclear weapon detonation for a high-explosive detonation with radiological debris.

From the stand point of Propaganda all one would need to show is the radiation is active in the area of a massive explosion. Provide that and the average person (not an expert that can be bought off) will believe that a nuke was used.

In a False Flag Event, it's not about the truth, it's about making people believe that your narrative is true.

"...Making people believe..."

Since radiation cannot be seen, smelled, tasted, or felt, and since "most people" not only do not possess, but do not have access to scintillation meters (Geiger counters), or know how to use one,

Who are "most people" going to turn to to find out that "radiation is active" (I think you mean "radiation is present") following an explosion?

That's right...Experts!

And the problem with "buying off" experts, especially where detecting and identifying the isotopic evidence of an aboveground nuclear explosion, is that there are literally Thousands of them All over the World!.

And not all of them are "friendly" to whichever "side" would need to buy them off.

As far as I am aware, the only group to have ever constructed and detonated a "dirty bomb" are the US DoE (Dept of Energy)....if I remember correctly?

The results of that little test showed the actual detonation spread the small amount of radioactive material over a small area with the pulverised remnants washed away by rain. In other words, it's a psychological impact rather than an effective weapon, with the actual explosion being more dangerous in terms of human or material damage, than the radioactive material.

The rest is all just fear porn from the MSM and internet warriors / speculators!

a reply to: Mantiss2021
You right it's not thermonuclear but it's also irrelevant as it was never suggested either type would happen

dirty bomb is not a exact thing it's definition is vauge and only really needs to be designed to release radioactive material so you can infact call something a dirty bomb and it release isotopes

Did u really need to explain how Chernobyl happen I know you know what the word essentially means u use it putting words in people's mouth is a bad habit

www.science.org...

Got a link to counter otherwise it happen

And to the point your dead wrong calling a dirty bomb a nuisance it can be scaled up to the point where it's worse than a nuclear bomb where not talking about someone scavenging materials in there basement where talking about a government with direct access to nuclear material

originally posted by: Britguy
As far as I am aware, the only group to have ever constructed and detonated a "dirty bomb" are the US DoE (Dept of Energy)....if I remember correctly?

The results of that little test showed the actual detonation spread the small amount of radioactive material over a small area with the pulverised remnants washed away by rain. In other words, it's a psychological impact rather than an effective weapon, with the actual explosion being more dangerous in terms of human or material damage, than the radioactive material.

The rest is all just fear porn from the MSM and internet warriors / speculators!

It was either them or the CIA as detailed in some declassified documents around 10 - 15 years ago IIRC - the weapon was found to be so useless that doom porn about them was actively ramped up so terrorist groups/rogue states would waste time and resources trying to costruct one.

a reply to: Britguy
The test was done by Israel and ment to simulate a terrorist dirty bomb using 99mct found in medical imaging equipment

www.haaretz.com...

No one's ever tested one that would be capable of doing more no need make another radioactive wasteland for something that won't happen