Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!wuarchive!emory!att!cbnews!cbnews!military From: randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: The Neutron Bomb Message-ID: <1990Oct29.031806.9162@cbnews.att.com> Date: 29 Oct 90 03:18:06 GMT References: <43034@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker) Organization: U of Kentucky, Mathematical Sciences Lines: 78 Approved: military@att.att.com From: Randy Appleton In article <43034@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> v064lnev@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu writes: >I have heard several remarks about using nuclear weapons, and all of them have >been systematically shot down for but one reason - no one wants the lingering >radiation from a nuclear explosion. I believe this is a very valid reason, and >I respect it. But it's not the only one. The moral and political implications of first use are enormous. And even if you have no moral scruples, the political implications are still enormous. huge. >However, I believe we have one other option at our disposal. I >believe it is called, the Neutron Bomb. This is a bomb unlike any other, one >that the U.S. military has previously developed, and placed on the back burner. >I shall explain the very interesting aspects of such a weapon: > > * Once delivery of this bomb has been successful, it's effects evade > all senses. There is no explosion, as this is not the principle > behind its function. Er, no. Not at all. A Neutron Bomb is just an "enhanced radation nuclear warhead". In other words, it is a nuclear bomb designed to release more prompt radiation (netrons), and less thermal energy (blast) than normal. In perticular, the lethal radius of the prompt radiation is much bigger than the blast. But there is still a nuclear-weapon sized blast! The original idea was as a weapon to stop Soviet tank columns in Western Europe. A bomb big enough to kill an armored tank at radius X would destry buildings at a radius much bigger than X, and Western Europe is rather crowded with cities. But, by releasing lots of fast (as opposed to thermal) neutrons, the outer skin of the armor would be hit by lots of fast neutrons, and then release even more thermal (means 'slow' to a phyicist) neutrons, and irradiate the crew, killing them. But, there is still an atomic (A-bomb, not H-bomb) bomb at the center of the neutron bomb. > > * The bomb emits neutrons in all directions, effectivly killing all > organic life within its radius of effect. > > * Inorganic structures are not damaged with the use of this weapon. > Thus, the inhabitants of a city may be killed, but the city, itself, > will be undamaged. Well, wrong. Actually, there is a blast. > > * There is virtually no lingering radiation from the use of this weapon. > Thus, allowing troops to advance upon the site within a matter of > days, without any risk of radiation poisoning. Er, I'm not sure, but I doubt it. Think of all that radiation that gets released in the explosion, and then absorbed by the enviornment. I bet it generates some interesting isotopes. Would you be willing to visit the area? Also, there is a big difference between the amount of radation that an area can withstand an still allow troupes in the middle of war thru it, and the amount of radiation that an area can withstand and support permant occupancy! >Could not this weapon be facilitated in a most advantageous way? I believe >that this option should be considered before the use of other conventional >nuclear weapons. What think you? Also, I thought that we (America) decided *NOT* to build any. Does anyone know for sure? I'm adding sci.military to the distribution; the effects of the neutron bomb seems quite in their area! -Randy -- ============================================================================= My feelings on George Bush's promises: "You have just exceeded the gulibility threshold!" ============================================Randy@ms.uky.edu==================