We all know about Chernobyl and its unfortunate nuclear disaster, reflected intriguingly and spectacularly in the HBO series. Chernobyl. We also know the terrible consequences of the nuclear explosions in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, both destructive and indirect with their radioactive remains. Although it is not educational material, its consequences are crudely and vilely reflected in the work. Barefootwhose protagonist suffers without a breath of pain or suffering after the explosion of one of these nuclear devices. The nuclear disaster shown on film and on paper must be added to the console and command support; the world of video games.
The franchise To fall It is particularly notable for the fact that it accurately reflects a video game based on a nuclear apocalypse. His fame is such that we were able to enjoy an adaptation of the work on Prime Videoenjoying a great reception from the public and duly honoring the original work. The premiere of its second season, focused on the story developed in the video game Fallout: New Vegaswill only increase fans’ desire for more adaptations of the franchise.
Their world is a desert, people live in perfectly adapted nuclear shelters – some of them, others have their own little affairs – and all this is due to a nuclear apocalypse which has irradiated the Earth with elements harmful to life. All nuclear bombs contain minimal radioactive elements due to their operation, but Could we create a deliberately radioactive device so that in addition to being destructive with the explosion, it would be more radioactively lethal?
Ethics in war
Should everything that is scientifically possible be morally permissible? The idea of intentionally making a weapon more radioactive forces us to confront this question head on.
A nuclear weapon aims at destruction, but a weapon whose aim is to increase radioactivity and not as a collateral effect, causing prolonged, widespread and practically impossible to contain radioactive poisoning, is a despicable act and, at the same time, an ethical problem that deserves to be debated.
A slow, silent and indiscriminate tool of death causes a direct collapse of fundamental norms of humanitarian law. The impact of such a weapon would continue to affect the entire world for decades. Civilians or combatants would not care, everyone would lose. Breathing, drinking or simply existing, the detonation location of this nuclear weapon would be the excruciatingly extended final end. No military objective justifies radioactivity which lasts beyond generations.
But the dilemma goes beyond the immediate human damage. A bomb designed to deliberately contaminate the environment for decades represents a direct attack on the entire planet. Long-lasting ecological damage – explicitly prohibited by international treaties – transforms this type of weapon into a form of deliberate ecocide. It threatens biodiversity, the future health and the very habitability of entire regions. This is why this idea remains theoretical and not put into practice, even if it plays with the ethical limits of technological imagination which have already been little tested with the cobalt bomb
The deliberately radioactive bomb
The first time I had contact with something similar to the cobalt bomb was during an episode of Tell me where a character with breast cancer had to be treated with radiotherapy, using cobalt irradiation. This treatment, according to the series, predated chemotherapy, but I have this vivid memory of first hearing about cobalt and its radioactive use in one of the longest-running series on national television, but this idea comes from further back.
During a round table of scientists in 1950, the physicist Leo Szilárd put the following doubt on the table: Could a nuclear device end all of humanity? Not the earth, but the human being. A nuclear bomb that would wipe out every person on the planet with deadly radioactive fallout surrounding the planet and then landing on the ground. Szilard commented that it was enough to choose a suitable element that captures all the neutrons and, from there, arrive at a dangerous situation. This element is cobalt-59.
From a classic thermonuclear bomb (like hydrogen bombs), which has two stages: an initial explosion by nuclear fission, followed by a fusion reaction; An outer layer of metallic cobalt-59 would be added, which is stable and non-radioactive. During the explosion, the intense flux of neutrons converts cobalt-59 into cobalt-60, a highly radioactive isotope that emits gamma rays, and we would then find ourselves in a dangerous situation.
According to the professor’s channel ChemSurvivalby doing some calculations, to contaminate the entire planet with radiation, the cobalt bomb would have to be 1,000 times more powerful than the Tsar’s bombthe most powerful nuclear bomb ever unleashed by humanity. Obviously, it is impossible to achieve something like that, but if the hypothetical case were to happen, in this way, our entire world would be contaminated for a very, very long time, and its consequences, theoretically, would be as follows:
A cobalt bomb would not be more destructive at the time of the explosion, but much more persistent. A year after detonation, the gamma radiation from a cobalt bomb would be about eight times greater than that from a conventional bomb of the same size. After five years, the difference would be multiplied by more than 100.
After a half-life of 5.27 years, a person exposed to radiation would receive a fatal dose within 1 hour. After about 53 years, the dose rate would have decreased and a healthy person could remain exposed to radioactive fallout for up to 4 days without immediate effects. Long-term exposure to this product may increase the risk of developing cancer. On the fourth day, the first symptoms of acute radiation syndrome may appear.
After 105 years, the dose rate would have been reduced and humans could remain homeless full time, and after 130 years, the dose rate of cobalt-60 would have been reduced and could be considered negligible.
In the cruelty of war, a cobalt bomb would cause instant destruction, separate and spread misery in a delayed manner. for a very, very long time. That would be insane for human beings. An act perfectly qualified as “unceremonious suicide”. This debate is a good exercise in discussing the ethical limits of war, all on paper of course, and how far it could go through the simple act of destruction. To fall He has this argument as his banner and his key phrase is perfect to conclude this writing, because “war, war never changes”.
About The Author
