I was listening to a local talk radio station last night in the car, and the discussion was all about the risks associated with the expected saturation bombing of Iraq; specifically, the risk of breaking open containers of biological or chemical agents, or perhaps releasing radioactive materials.

One point made was that while the Pentagon has talked about nuclear bunker-busters, which might have the nice effect of cauterizing what they destroy, all we have at the present are conventional chemical-explosive bombs. I'd expect that conventional explosives don't deliver the extreme heat that might assure destruction of those nasty things, and might instead disperse them over a wide area.

Of course, a near-miss with even a nuke bunker-buster would risk blast dispersal without cauterization. Accuracy is paramount.

There's a fair number of people here who might know something about this issue (and a larger number who'll have an opinion!). What do y'all think?

--Robert