[Natanael]

There's a lot of talk about WMD's these days. Most of it is tied to the "Ameriraqi" war. I was curious what people's opinions are on this little-known version of the nuke.

Here is a link for those of you who are bored:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_bomb

It has some very interesting information regarding its suggested uses. I'm wondering what, in your minds, would justify the use of such a weapon. I'm also wondering how many of you would be willing to be/remain a citizen in a country that used one (in a hypotheitcal situation, of course).

Gimme your thoughts.

[Khaldun]

They are basically small nuclear weapons designed to kill even when the target is heavily protected. Now, if the US started using nuetron bombs to destroy, say, incoming missiles... well, if no one was killed, and the radiation fades quickly, ok. However, with radiation being what it is, nobody being hurt by that much radiation being released into the atmosphere is unlikely. Which is why they would only be used to stop incoming NUCLEAR missiles, as by that time, the radiation of the nuetron bomb is nothing compared to the devastation that would be caused by a nuclear weapon. That is justifiable.

However, use of a neutron bomb against military or civilian targets is unquestionably like the use of a nuclear weapon. With a neutron bomb, the problem with using it against a military target is that it's bound to kill plenty of civilians who happen to be anywhere nearby... even downwind, for instance. With the current stigma on nuclear weapons technology, neutron bombs fall in the same category as their nuclear cousins. I really don't know what I'd do if the US used neutron bombs, as the situation would have to be very dire to warrant their use.

[Natanael]

Yeah... I don't know what I'd do either, but I suppose it depends upon the circumstances involved.

According to nuke buffs, though, the rads from neutrons die off very quickly, allowing "safe" reoccupation of bombed areas within days of zero-hour.

With that in mind... I wonder how hard it would be to make a "small" one that would only wipe out an area of around 1km sq. See, with a more controlled blast area like that, it would have been applicable for use in the cave-hunts of Afghanistan... The way the bomb currently works, though... hell no.

[Khaldun]

Ah, wait a sec. The type of radiation that's released by a nuetron bomb DOES fade very quickly, and will not carry very far on the wind like conventional nuclear radiation would. However, it would indiscriminately kill everything within a very large radius.... too large to avoid killing a great many civilians, even if the target was military.

I'm sure the military is already looking to make smaller, more precise forms of the current neutron bombs to say, irradiate a small area, or perhaps even directly throw vast numbers of nuetrons in a focused "beam"... although the energy requirements would be astronomical, and the weapon would need to be reloaded after every shot, and radiation would also be on the users end... the list goes on.

[ForbiddenKnowledge]

You cannot justify the use of something that will cause death in this manner. Radiation poisoning would be a horrible way to die, so how can it be justified use? If it was used ONLY to take down missiles, maybe, but I'm still not convinced

[LordDemon]

Originally Posted by ForbiddenKnowledge

You cannot justify the use of something that will cause death in this manner. Radiation poisoning would be a horrible way to die, so how can it be justified use? If it was used ONLY to take down missiles, maybe, but I'm still not convinced

The bomb is designed to kill you in less then an hour, propably instantaneously near detonation. It´s not like you suffer months (unless you were unlucky enough to be in the long range of the detonation).

For use, I don´t know if it is any better or worse then cluster bombs, nerve gas, incendiary bombs or simply bullet in the gut. All cause pain, and all kill. The problem seems to simply be the mental image of radiation death (compared to being burn to death, being blown to pieces or being shot) and area of damage.

Still, I would say a carpet bombing affects larger area, and no-one seems to have problems with heavy bombers, so why does nuclear weapon have such a bad image?

[Farseer_Del]

Originally Posted by ForbiddenKnowledge

You cannot justify the use of something that will cause death in this manner. Radiation poisoning would be a horrible way to die, so how can it be justified use? If it was used ONLY to take down missiles, maybe, but I'm still not convinced

The following things are horrible ways to die:
Burns from Napalm
Loss of limbs
Gutshots
Kneeshots
Sarin
VX
Celine Dion
Ebola
Etc...

The Nuetron Bomb has the effects every other nuke has at certain ranges: killing by radiation. There's one flaw with the nuetron bomb: high cost. Needs so much tritium and has such a short shelf life they're expensive to maintain.

Nuclear weapons have a bad image precisely becuase of the side effects: radiation, the massive loss of life, threat of nuclear winter. Carpet bombing doesn't irradiate farmland.

The nuetron bomb is useful for three reasons: to occupy an area and as a terror weapon. Obviously it would be an amazing anti-ship weapon, but frankly, they're too iffy. There's little that would justify it's use today, and the UK simply can't afford the technology anyway.

[Natanael]

That's two reasons you gave :P

Besides, I live in the US - we already have "Neuts". I can't help but shudder at the tax dollars being shovelled into these things just so they can sit there and look scary like some angry "chav" on a street corner!

My point is, basically, if they're too scary to use, then refine them so that they can be used without creating international upheaval.

They cost probably right around the same amount of money as the entire "shock & awe" campaign that headed off the "Ameriraqi" War... so logically, we could have just dropped one or two Neuts, spent the same amount of money, killed the same amount of people, and we wouldn't have to spend so much money on rebuilding...

...But because its a type of Nuke, the world would have pooped its collective pants at the sight of the "second sun" in the sky and probably would have gladly tried to nuke the USA right out of existence. Stupid.

You guys think I'm crazy?

[Shaso Wanax]

Just to make a few points here:

Neutron bombs were designed to provide the military with a means of using tactical nuclear strikes without poluting a segment of the surface for years. It does this well since any neutron poor substance will absorb any radiation--read cynder blocks.

It can also be directed much like an energy blast in a cone from an airburst, so unlike conventional nukes that just go booom it will not cause widespread EMP dissruption.

It kills life by overloading the target area with neutrons, alpha, and beta particles mainly, but it also is a relatively low blast yeild that leaves structures in tact.

It should have been used in this war just to show who CAN bomb who into submission, but now I think it is politically too late.

BTW, it is a first strike weapon, thus considered bad by world consciousness standards.

Wanax

[Farseer_Del]

Originally Posted by Natanael

That's two reasons you gave :P

If you meant the take ground/terror weapon/anti-ship weapon part, then it seems they've changed the definition of two.