Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rochester!bullwinkle!uw-beaver!tikal!sigma!bill
From: bill@sigma.UUCP (William Swan)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.sci
Subject: Re: Re: Plutonium (Neutron bombs)
Message-ID: <716@sigma.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 19-May-86 15:43:22 EDT
Article-I.D.: sigma.716
Posted: Mon May 19 15:43:22 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 23-May-86 22:17:41 EDT
References: <358@drutx.UUCP> <1063@whuxl.UUCP> <2384@jhunix.UUCP> <708@whuts.UUCP> <796@ccird2.UUCP> <225@anasazi.UUCP> <683@riccb.UUCP>
Reply-To: bill@sigma.UUCP (William Swan)
Lines: 36
Xref: linus net.politics:15387 net.sci:587

In article <683@riccb.UUCP> jmc@riccb.UUCP (Jeff McQuinn ) writes:
>>[...]Neutron bombs are not designed to spread plutonium or any other
>>radioactive substance. A neutron bomb is a device which has a much
>>higher than normal prompt neutron flux, thus causing more deaths
>>from PROMPT radiation than a normal bomb of the same explosive power.
>>Neutron bombs, by the way, do still make a big bang, just not as
>>big as they would otherwise. There is a difference between a prompt
>>release of radiation (which means photons and fast moving particles)
>>and the release of radioactive material (which LATER releases photons
>>or fast moving particles).
>
>This is basicly correct however I don't believe that prompt neutrons are
>are any more damaging then any other kind. The concept behind the neutron
>bomb is to deliver more radiation per kiloton of bomb.  This concept was 
>controversial because it's intent is to kill people more efficiently then
>to destroy property.

Here we go with the "Landlord's Dream" concept again. The neutron bomb
does _not_ kill people and leave property untouched (unlike your bio-chem
warfare).  It _is_ designed to kill more people in a more limited area
without leaving the lingering nasties that an unenhanced bomb does. This
makes it substantially more useful as a tactical weapon (and perhaps
_that_ is why it should be banned).

There were at least two situations where an enhanced-radiation bomb would
be advantageous, according to a Scientific American article sometime in the
past few years. I am not sure I agree with all the assumptions therein (and
I don't have the article anymore), but..   The neutron bomb could be
useful in a defensive situation where your own soldiers (or local populace)
are dug in and protected and the enemy is advancing and exposed. Setting 
off such a device gives you a fairly quick kill of the exposed enemy, while
making the grounds in question dangerous for a "short" time, 2-3 days I think
the article said, before friendly troops could pass, or civilians emerge. 

By the way, in war the real objective is to gain control over the enemy.
Killing people or destroying property are merely means to that end.