Probable Outcomes of a Radiological Dispersion Device - Research Paper Example

? Probable Outcomes of a Radiological Dispersion Device Probable Outcomes of a Radiological Dispersion Device According to severalresearchers, a radiological dispersion device can be identified as any weapon, which is manufactured to spread radioactive materials that are intended to cause harm to the population of a region (Ford, 1998). This device is designed to scatter radioactive debris in a wide area. The threat posed by the debris is exceedingly vital depending on the radioactive material of the radiological device. There are two main versions of the radiological weapons (Ford, 1998). These versions include the dirty bomb and the salted bomb. The radiological weapons can be considered as weapons of mass destruction. This paper will discuss the likely effect of the radiological weapons, which are mostly used by terrorists against the western nations. In some cases, the radiological weapons can be categorized as weapons of mass destruction because they are used to deploy a state of panic in areas that are densely populated. In severe cases, these weapons may cause casualties in the area. Research asserts that the dirty bomb is not a nuclear weapon since; it lacks a significant explosive power as compared to other nuclear weapons (Ford, 1998). However, the dirty bomb uses some conventional explosives, which enable the device to spread the radioactive material. In most cases, they usually use fuels from radioactive medical waste and nuclear power plants. The other version of the radiological weapon is the salted bomb, which is a nuclear bomb that produces large amounts of nuclear fallout than the normal nuclear weapons. When these weapons are deployed in an area, the location is significantly destroyed. The level of destruction depends on the radiological source and its quality. The effect of the radiological weapons can also be influenced by several factors. Some of the most common factors include the energy, radiation, half-life of the radioactive element, shielding, portability of the device, the role of the environment and the durability of the device among other factors (Ford, 1998). The radioisotopes used in the radiological weapons are manufactured in the nuclear power plants. In a typical case, a radiological dispersion device is not used to achieve a strategic goal but, these devices are used to inflict psychological effects. This asserts that when a radiological device is deployed in an area, the area is rendered inaccessible until it is decontaminated. The process of decontaminating an area affected by the radioactive element is quite expensive. After the end of the Cold War, most political relationships which undergirded the global balance of power were traumatized. Therefore, countries such as USSR and Yugoslavia were separated into various nations (Rickert, 2005). During this period, these countries lost most of its military hardware including the radiological weapons. The fatal impact of the radiological weapons has forced most countries to invest in purchasing detection equipment since; radiation cannot be detected with the human senses. In addition, most countries have also established plans which are aimed at fighting proliferation through coordinating emergency response, training and enhancing plans to secure and implement other security measures. According to several studies, which have been carried out in several countries, there are several elements, which are used in the radiological devices. Some of the elements which pose a considerable threat include Cobalt-60, Cesium-137, Iridium-192, Strontium-90, Californium-252, Plutonium-238 and Americium-241 (Blackman, 2001). The isotopes mentioned are considered as the most dangerous isotopes that can be used in radiological weapons. According to most sources, most of these isotopes can be found in Russia. This is because Russia uses the isotopes for various reasons in the nuclear plants and hospitals. The contamination caused by the radiological dispersion devices can lead to long-term health effects. Some of the common health effects include tissue and organ damage, radiation sickness, contamination of food supplies and water resources and cancerous growth. On the other hand, there are other social and economic effects that affect densely populated areas. For example, if a radiological weapon is deployed in a giant city like New York, the effects will be quite catastrophic (Rickert, 2005). In this case, the businesses will be rendered bankrupt, and the employees would lose their incomes (Blackman, 2001). The contamination caused by these weapons can also be transmitted by the affected individuals through various agents hence, contributing to the overall dispersion of radiation. Furthermore, the potential psychological effects may include mass hysteria, capitulation of the terrorist demands and calls for a regulated state (Rickert, 2005). If a radioactive attack is deployed in a coalition nation, the effects can also be diverse (Rickert, 2005). Troops can withdraw their support from the country affected hence, making the situation dire. Most individuals have a perception that all radiological weapons have serious physical effects. However, experts assert that most individuals have overstated the ease of creating and deploying a radiological dispersal device. In reality, this perception is flawed because the process of obtaining the radioactive material required and constructing the device is beyond the capability of most countries. Research asserts that the creation of lethal radiological dispersal devices is not easy to build. The radiological dispersal devices that can be made by most nations do not have the ability to cause effectual mass casualties. In addition, it is quite evident that the use of any radiological dispersion device can cause tremendous psychological and political impacts. This fact creates a list of military concerns that can develop after the deployment of a radiological dispersion device. For instance, the military would be extremely worried regarding how the target area will be affected by the explosion. Therefore, this device has the capability to inject the uncertainty of a possible war known as Clausewitzian friction (Weart, 2012). According to the discipline of psychology, it has been proven that the deployment of the radiological weapons demoralizes troops and saps the fighting spirit of the troops hence, reducing the effectiveness of the combat. Furthermore, the radiological weapons are considered as potentially powerful tools that have the ability to trigger political reactions in any country. The radiological weapons can be possessed by various terrorist cells. Some of the most common terrorist cells include separatist groups, ethnocentric groups, nationalistic groups, domestic groups, social groups and religious groups (Weart, 2012). The separatist groups comprise of individuals who wish to separate from an entity created through political, religious or even domination. This group has various principles, which encompass aspects related to equity, anti-imperialism and opposition of activity from other states. The ethnocentric groups believe that race is an essential aspect in the society. Therefore, this group is known for the fact that they use race as their main foundation. On the other hand, the nationalistic groups substantially focus on their allegiance to one nation (Shafer, 2005). This group usually places the well-being of their respective nation before all the other nations. This act is portrayed through the establishment of new nations or even through separating a portion of the nation to merge with another nation and merge with the belief of the state. Domestic groups also have access to radiological weapons. The domestic groups are considered as home-based terrorist groups which maintain their residency in the country while at the same time opposing their beliefs, cultures and policies. These terrorists are closely interrelated with extremist organizations. Their efforts usually focus on socio-political fundamentals of the state. In addition, there are international groups, which function in most countries all over the world. These groups focus to direct their actions in particular geographical areas. One of the most exemplary examples is Hezbollah which maintains its operations in several countries (Shafer, 2005). Groups such as Al Qaeda are known as transnational groups because their members originate from different ethnic groups and they are spread all over the world. Al Qaeda’s objectives are directed to multiple countries. Religious groups also have access to the radiological weapons. These groups use religion as an inspiration to terrorism. According to recent research, these groups have risen to 43% between 1980 and 1995 (Murpy, 1976). In this case, the Islamic community is considered as the most active group that poses a radical threat to countries such as the United States. These extremists notably use violence to uphold their religious views. Lastly, there are social groups that promote extremist behavior and terrorism based on various interests. These issues include minority rights, animal rights and ecological aspects. The information provided regarding the terrorist cells affirms that these groups have the ability to deploy these devices to cause panic in an area. In conclusion, the radiological weapons are well suited as military weapons in a classic sense. The use of the radiological weapons is considered as a powerful aspect that has the capability to trigger enormous political reactions in the host countries or even in a coalition state. These reactions can result to serious consequences in military campaigns. The increasing concern on the radiological weapons has also drawn attention in the military department of most countries. Weapon designers highlight that the physical threat posed by the radiological weapons have been extremely overstated. The military forces should be able to withstand most of the physical effects of radiological devices that are posed by the radioactive debris from the radiological devices (Murpy, 1976). References Blackman, W. (2001). Basic hazardous waste management. New York: CRC Press. Ford, J. (1998). Radiological dispersal devices. Retrieved from http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ndu/forum136.htm Murpy, A. (1976). The nuclear power controversy. Columbia: Columbia University Press. Oren, M. (2007). Power, faith, and fantasy America in the Middle East 1776 to the present. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc. Rickert, P. (2005). The likely effect of a radiological dispersion device. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1049&context=gov_fac_pubs Shafer, D. (2005). Hazardous materials characterization: Evaluation methods, procedures, and considerations. New York: Wiley Press. Weart, S. (2012). The rise of nuclear fear. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Read More