[dpwiener]

This is just plain silly. "Dirty bombs" are not weapons of mass destruction. They are more like weapons of mass annoyance. The main damage and loss of life caused by setting off a radiological bomb would come from the impact of the conventional explosives involved. The radioactivity would probably not kill anyone, or at worst would cause a slight increase (which was statistically questionable) in cancer 20 or 30 years down the road. The real impact of a radiological bomb would be to cause large portions of the affected city to be evacuated and/or abandoned (at a cost of tens or hundreds of billions of dollars) due to public hysteria over anything containing the word "radiation".

Let's save the term "Weapons of Mass Destruction" for weapons which truly kill large numbers of people, and not devalue our language for the sake of political expediency.

[Darksheare]

Well, let's see... a WMD would kill alotta people.
Use the right radioactive substance in a dirty bomb, and you kill alotta people with cancer later, or radiation sickness quickly.
Depends on where in the resultant particle cloud you are, and if you stir up contaminated dust and inhale it after the explosion.

So yes, it could be termed a WMD.

[Dr. Frank fan]

"Dirty bombs" are not weapons of mass destruction.

Okay boss so that means you wouldn't mind one bit if one went off near you. Suit yourself. Me, I'd rather not.

[Cyber Ninja]

How about "Weapons of More Destruction Than I Want On My Block" then? WMDTIWOMB

CB^)

[Republican Wildcat]

Correct---if Saddam or other terrorists were to use these so-called "dirty bombs", it would be no big deal. Only a few thousand would be killed rather than millions. The fact anyone would be concerned about these things in the hands of terrorists is a very sad commentary on the state of ignorance in this country.

[Tempest]

Drugs are bad for you.

[alrea]

"Dirty bombs" are not weapons of mass destruction

dp, you may be joshing, but do you realize how much financial destruction a dirty would do if it went off in the US, or anywhere?

[Lazamataz]

This is just plain silly. "Dirty bombs" are not weapons of mass destruction. They are more like weapons of mass annoyance.

As critical as I can be of Bush, you are just plain wrong. A dirty bomb in downtown Manhattan would destroy a sizable portion of the economy -- a little bit more serious than 'annoyance'.

Furthermore, the fairly serious increase in cancers in the effected area would result in a goodly body count.

[Cosmo]

Not terribbly impressed with this article, myself. National Review shouldn't be publishing this kind of spin.

[Wolfstar]

In the hands of Mohammed Atta and his gang of (literal) cutthroat hijackers, four passenger airliners became weapons of mass destruction — or isn't 3,000 dead enough of a mass for you and those who share your viewpoint?!