Russia reiterated its claim that kyiv is preparing to use a “dirty bomb” on its own territory and said it would take the matter to the UN Security Council. For his part, the Ukrainian president, Volodímir Zelenski, has denied the accusations and has said that they are baseless. However, the fear of the use of weapons with radioactive material remains latent and its consequences could be devastating.
Russia assures it and Ukraine denies it. Moscow has signaled that kyiv is seeking to use a “dirty bomb.” These accusations have been denied by the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, who, for his part, reiterates that the only one capable of using a weapon of such magnitude is his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin.
“If Russia says that Ukraine is preparing something, that only means one thing: that Russia has already prepared all that,” he said.
In the West, alarms have been raised and the United States has assured that the Russian claims are unfounded.
Despite this, the Kremlin has announced that it will seek to present the matter to the UN Security Council on Tuesday and has even asked its secretary general, António Guterres, to prevent “this heinous crime from happening.”
For its part, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) also reacted. The agency intends to send inspectors to two specific nuclear plants at the request of kyiv.
Since the complaint that the Russian Defense Minister, Sergei Shoigú, made on Sunday in front of his French and Turkish counterparts, all kinds of speculations have been opened about the consequences that the use of a “dirty bomb” would have, something unprecedented in history. and that could lead to an escalation of the war in Ukraine.
But what is a “dirty bomb”?
Also known as a “radiological dispersal device,” a “dirty bomb” is made up of a conventional-type explosive that is wrapped in a radioactive material.
Its objective is one: to exploit to spread said materials in the form of dust or sand over a population or a strategic place.
As Lajos Szászdi, an analyst of international relations and strategic studies of the Russian land, naval, air and space forces, points out for France 24, “it has to be blown up so that it has the maximum destructive effect, so that it does the greatest possible damage to the human life. The more expansion radius that radioactive dust has on a target, which can be a city, the better it will be for the attackers and it will have worse consequences for the victims.”
Unlike an atomic bomb, this one has a material that is relatively easy to access and its manufacture is much less complex.
Thus, what it seeks is to contaminate an area and generate damage to both the infrastructure and the people who may die, “both with direct radiation and by ingestion or inhalation of radioactive materials,” the newspaper says.The clarin‘.
What consequences could its use have?
There is no evidence that such a bomb has been used in the past. According to Szászdi, there were plans during World War II by Nazi forces in Germany to attack the United States. However, he says, they lacked the technology to get them across the Atlantic. Thus, the consequences are difficult to calculate.
However, its use would have both psychological and economic effects and a significant cost in human lives.
“The idea would not be to destroy targets like with a nuclear bomb, it would be to contaminate the air or the water, so that when people breathe, they inhale that radioactive dust and become contaminated. If they don’t die immediately, they could eventually do so from cancers or tumors that form and health complications,” says Szászdi.
For its part, the United States Regulatory Commission refers to the effects of a psychological nature by stating that “a dirty bomb is not a ‘weapon of mass destruction’ but rather a ‘weapon of mass disturbance’, which mainly seeks to contaminate and frighten”.
Its explosion would also have a huge economic cost. First, because it can contaminate crops and crops. Second, because the affected areas must be evacuated and the radioactive material must be cleaned.
What is Russia looking for with this narrative?
For now, an eventual use of this type of bomb is in “we will see”. However, Russian warnings have already had an effect internationally. According to the United States and other Western countries, there is no Ukrainian plan to use this type of weapon.
So the question would be: What does the Kremlin intend with these accusations?
“It is a lie by the Russians to sow doubts, especially among those who see the Ukrainians badly,” says Szászdi.
And he adds: “What worries me is that the Russians may be saying it to prepare public opinion and the world for a “dirty bomb” attack, but it would not be by the Ukrainians, but by themselves, to accuse the Ukrainians.”
The expert points out that it is also part of a “psychological game” that would be testing the reaction capacity of both the United States and NATO.
The use of such weapons in Ukraine would have multiple objectives. “Test the will of the West to punish Russia or stop the Ukrainian advance. It would also have propaganda motives against Ukraine” and even attack the Ukrainian economy, says Szászdi.
Towards an escalation of the conflict?
Like the consequences of its use, the reactions of the different actors in the conflict to the use of a “dirty bomb” remain speculative.
However, using this type of device is controversial and could lead to serious consequences. Despite the fact that these are not regulated by any kind of treaty, their place in the Ukrainian conflict, as ‘El Clarín’ shows, “would probably be considered illegal due to the risk they pose to civilians”.
At the same time, ‘‘ points out that “governments around the world try to maintain strict control and monitoring of these under the umbrella of the IAEA, to prevent terrorist or criminal groups from obtaining them.”
Under these guidelines, it could be assumed that there would be a stronger reaction from countries with the United States or even NATO.
“If the Russians use a radiological weapon, then it would be a good question how the US, UK and NATO are going to react. Of course they would increase support, they would give them means of decontamination,” says Szászdi. And he adds that more sanctions would come.
It remains to be seen if a major intervention at the military level would be a possibility and in what proportion.
With Reuters and local media
