[dangus]

Just so you can appreciate precisely how stupid your notion that a dirty bomb could kill millions is:

“A dirty bomb (RDD) is not a weapon of mass destruction.” — Center for Disease Control.

“In 1987, in Brazil, thieves stole Caesium and distributed it throughout a local population. The effect was similar to a dirty bomb explosion. Despite the International Atomic Energy Agency calling it “one of the world’s worst radiological incidents”, only four lives were lost.”

“The primary threat of dirty bombs are not direct loss of life, but of potentially life-threatening mass panic and economic dislocation.”

“A similarly sized conventional bomb would likely be deadlier than a dirty bomb (RDD), causing death primarily through a shock wave. The chief threat of a dirty bomb would from the ensuing panic.”

[Garth Tater]

Just so you can appreciate precisely how stupid your notion that a dirty bomb could kill millions is:

“A dirty bomb (RDD) is not a weapon of mass destruction.” — Center for Disease Control.

I did not say "a dirty bomb" I said "An intentionally dirty nuke". They are not at all the same thing. A dirty bomb is a conventional bomb that spews radioactive waste over a small area and a dirty nuke is a nuclear weapon designed specifically to spread highly radioactive isotopes such as strontium-90 and caesium-131 across hundreds of square miles. These isotopes, if incorporated into the construction of a nuclear weapon, will still be killing people for generations after the dirty nuke explodes. Damn dude, you really need to stick to subjects you are a least marginally familiar with.