Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!linac!att!cbnews!cbnews!military From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Neutron Bomb Message-ID: <1991Jan18.004007.8881@cbnews.att.com> Date: 18 Jan 91 00:40:07 GMT References: <1991Jan17.053858.29634@cbnews.att.com> Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker) Organization: U of Toronto Zoology Lines: 32 Approved: military@att.att.com From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: tipmo@oak.circa.ufl.edu >... telling of a neutron bomb. I would like more information >on this beast incuding the premise behind it. Are there any in existance today, >and if so, would they be an appropriate response to a Chemical/Biological attack >from Baghdad? The basic idea of a neutron bomb is to build a nuclear bomb that emits mostly high-energy radiation rather than blast and heat. Such a bomb would kill people but leave property relatively unscathed. This was thought to be of particular interest for a tactical nuclear war in Germany, where the Soviets had a huge advantage in manpower and tankpower and the war would be fought on friendly territory (where demolishing everything in sight was considered undesirable). In practice there are some limiting factors. You always get *some* blast and heat, for one thing. For another, this was another of these stupid tactical weapons that make first nuclear use -- with incalculable consequences and huge risks -- much more tempting. I think some neutron bombs, aka Enhanced Radiation Warheads, were built and deployed despite all the political flap about them. I could be wrong; I don't clearly remember how the uproar ended. Nobody with any sense considers nuclear weapons of any kind an appropriate response to anything non-nuclear. We are all much better off if nuclear weapons remain an ultimate last resort only. -- If the Space Shuttle was the answer, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology what was the question? | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry