>>63884605
We go over this once a goddamn week anon. Granted, it's more entertaining than another Ukraine thread but it's still getting old. Dirty bombs are a meme. The safest way to dispose of one is to bury it. The second safest way to dispose of it is to detonate it. The most dangerous thing that you can do with it is leave it intact. Detonating it takes an extremely dangerous amount of contamination and dilutes it to a much less harmful state. ("Dilution is the solution to pollution," as we like to say in the trade.)

A state actor would never use one because it would trigger a nuclear response. A rogue actor would never use one because they'd die during the assembly process, assuming that they acquired enough material to make one nasty enough to actually significantly contaminate an area.

Again: dirty bombs are an effective terror weapon against ignorant people and are useful for making an area uninhabitable for anything from a couple of decades to a century or three, but they're no good at all for killing people. You'd be better off with a conventional warhead and a ground burst if you're doing that. And again, as a state actor, if you're going to use a weapon that's going to prompt a nuclear retaliation, it had better be worth it.

>cobalt bomb gets around the radiation problem but you need a nuclear bomb to make it work
>there are some isotopes that are much nastier and would work much better than co-60, but they're on the exotic side and have other issues, so forgot your polonium-210 bomb, ain't gonna happen, not even for the russians and they're the only ones that make the shit