Anyone Old Enough to Remember the Neutron Bomb?

Pliablemoose

Lifer
Oct 11, 1999
25,195
0
56
Had a real interesting talk with several "War College" grads, they mentioned the phrase neutron bomb more than once.

Seems like we've had over 350 of these little jokers stored since 91' ranging from cruise missle warheads to 8" artillery shells.
 

RedRooster

Diamond Member
Sep 14, 2000
6,596
0
76
Interesting, just doing some quick reading about em. I had only heard of Atomic and Hydrogen, but not Neutron. Apparently, an N-bomb can wipe out humans, but cause very little damage to buildings and environment.
This could be an interesting thread, moreso for theories on how they work and where they exist. I hope that no country ever uses one, as its more powerful than even an H-bomb.
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
I keep having this irrational urge to make this comment,

To all of the people that wanted to see the US reduce its nuclear arsenal. You may get your wish.


Realistically, I do not want a nuclear war. I hope that the countries that are supporting and harboring the terrorists see the error of their ways and help the coalition of countries bring them to justice. I hope they help to cut off their funds and support and let the world grow into a better place for all.
If they don?t, then I hope Allah has mercy on their souls.

Yep, I remember the neutron bombs. After a very bad layoff at work one of the managers was nicknamed "Neutron John". All of the buildings were still there, they just didn't have any people in them.
 

Looney

Lifer
Jun 13, 2000
21,941
5
0
Yeah, i remember the neutron bomb (the was the bomb they used in the beginning of the movie Outbreak). I'm sure if it ever came down to it, that would be the weapon that would be used rather than an H-bomb.

But it won't... not unless a nuke strikes the US first. George Jr will probably follow George Sr in warning that if any weapons of mass destruction is used against them, they would follow suit with their own nukes.

 

spanky

Lifer
Jun 19, 2001
25,716
3
81
ok, i have a question. everyone has heard about nukes and how we don't want a nuclear war, but could just one nuke actually blow the US off the face of the earth? how much devastation could one nuke cause? i know that the H-bomb used in ww2 basically wiped out a city (please correct me if i am wrong), so it would probably be a safe assumption to think that a nuke can definitly take out an entire city. but as for the whole US....could it?
 

Looney

Lifer
Jun 13, 2000
21,941
5
0
The bombs used in Japan weren't H-bombs, they were just regular atomic bombs. H-bombs came later, when they discovered the nuclear reaction of the atomic bombs can cause fission to occur between heavy hydrogen isotopes, thus causing the reactive blast to be much bigger.

As for how much dmg an h-bomb can do... no, a single bomb can't take out the US. I'm not sure the area of effect of each megatone, but i would imagine a good size bomb can take out a good size city like New York.

 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
No, not GE, let's just say that my company is about a 1/4 of the size it was when I started there.

spankyOO7,

No, but there are places that one bomb would cause more problems then just the lives lost, terrible though that would be.
 

ornjblud

Senior member
Mar 29, 2000
718
0
0


<< Apparently, an N-bomb can wipe out humans, but cause very little damage to buildings and environment. >>



Kind of like a giant microwave oven in the sky. The upside is the area is inhabitable a few months later, the downside is the fallout from prevailing winds.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Seems like we've had over 350 of these little jokers stored since 91' ranging from cruise missle warheads to 8" artillery shells.

Little jokes. Oh man!! :)

Anyway I am another person who NEVER wants to see a nuclear war. As bad as conventional warfare is nuclear war in any capacity is hellishly awful. I'm sure of this. What we saw in Japan was nothing compared to the hell of full scale nuclear war these days.
 

gil11542

Platinum Member
Oct 20, 2000
2,931
0
0
I think the idea behind that type of bomb was to kill people without destroying property, Now we have bio and chemo weapons.But I think the nuetron bomb stated it all....
 

xyyz

Diamond Member
Sep 3, 2000
4,331
0
0


<< Yeah, i remember the neutron bomb (the was the bomb they used in the beginning of the movie Outbreak). I'm sure if it ever came down to it, that would be the weapon that would be used rather than an H-bomb.

But it won't... not unless a nuke strikes the US first. George Jr will probably follow George Sr in warning that if any weapons of mass destruction is used against them, they would follow suit with their own nukes.
>>



No you idiot... that wasn't a neutron bomb... it was a bomb that spreads a fuel mist in the air and then sparks an ignition burning all the fuel in an intense burst... the suction of that device is so severe they say that it can suck the lungs outta a person.

I forget the name of the device... but it's the most powerful conventional weapon in the US arsenal.
 

xyyz

Diamond Member
Sep 3, 2000
4,331
0
0
Here's info on Neutron Bombs... pay attention to the bolded area... that dispells the myth about no property destruction....

Neutron bombs, more formally referred to as "enhanced radiation (ER) warheads", are small thermonuclear weapons in which the burst of neutrons generated by the fusion reaction is intentionally not absorbed inside the weapon, but allowed to escape. This intense burst of high-energy neutrons is the principle destructive mechanism. Neutrons are more penetrating than other types of radiation so many shielding materials that work well against gamma rays do not work nearly as well. The term "enhanced radiation" refers only to the burst of ionizing radiation released at the moment of detonation, not to any enhancement of residual radiation in fallout.

The U.S. has developed neutron bombs for use as strategic anti-missile weapons, and as tactical weapons intended for use against armored forces. As an anti-missile weapon ER weapons were developed to protect U.S. ICBM silos from incoming Soviet warheads by damaging the nuclear components of the incoming warhead with the intense neutron flux. Tactical neutron bombs are primarily intended to kill soldiers who are protected by armor. Armored vehicles are extremely resistant to blast and heat produced by nuclear weapons, so the effective range of a nuclear weapon against tanks is determined by the lethal range of the radiation, although this is also reduced by the armor. By emitting large amounts of lethal radiation of the most penetrating kind, ER warheads maximize the lethal range of a given yield of nuclear warhead against armored targets.

One problem with using radiation as a tactical anti-personnel weapon is that to bring about rapid incapacitation of the target, a radiation dose that is many times the lethal level must be administered. A radiation dose of 600 rads is normally considered lethal (it will kill at least half of those who are exposed to it), but no effect is noticeable for several hours. Neutron bombs were intended to deliver a dose of 8000 rads to produce immediate and permanent incapacitation. A 1 kt ER warhead can do this to a T-72 tank crew at a range of 690 m, compared to 360 m for a pure fission bomb. For a "mere" 600 rad dose the distances are 1100 m and 700 m respectively, and for unprotected soldiers 600 rad exposures occur at 1350 m and 900 m. The lethal range for tactical neutron bombs exceeds the lethal range for blast and heat even for unprotected troops.

The neutron flux can induce significant amounts of short lived secondary radioactivity in the environment in the high flux region near the burst point. The alloy steels used in armor can develop radioactivity that is dangerous for 24-48 hours. If a tank exposed to a 1 kt neutron bomb at 690 m (the effective range for immediate crew incapacitation) is immediately occupied by a new crew, they will receive a lethal dose of radiation within 24 hours.

Newer armor designs afford more protection than the Soviet T-72 against with ER warheads were initially targeted. Special neutron absorbing armor techniques have also been developed and deployed, such as armors containing boronated plastics and the use of vehicle fuel as a shield. Some newer types of armor, like that of the M-1 tank, employ depleted uranium which can offset these improvements since it undergoes fast fission, generating additional neutrons and becoming radioactive.

Due to the rapid attenuation of neutron energy by the atmosphere (it drops by a factor of 10 every 500 m in addition to the effects of spreading) ER weapons are only effective at short ranges, and thus are found in relatively low yields. ER warheads are also designed to minimize the amount of fission energy and blast effect produced relative to the neutron yield. The principal reason for this was to allow their use close to friendly forces. The common perception of the neutron bomb as a "landlord bomb" that would kill people but leave buildings undamaged is greatly overstated. At the intended effective combat range (690 m) the blast from a 1 kt neutron bomb will destroy or damage to the point of unusability almost any civilian building. Thus the use of neutron bombs to stop an enemy attack, which requires exploding large numbers of them to blanket the enemy forces, would also destroy all buildings in the area.

Neutron bombs (the tactical versions at least) differ from other thermonuclear weapons in that a deuterium-tritium gas mixture is the only fusion fuel. The reasons are two-fold: the D-T thermonuclear reaction releases 80% of its energy as neutron kinetic energy, and it is also the easiest of all fusion reactions to ignite. This means that only 20% of the fusion energy is available for blast and thermal radiaiton production, that the neutron flux produced consists of extremely penetrating 14.7 Mev neutrons, and that a very small fission explosion (250-400 tons) can be used for igniting the reaction. The more typical lithium deuteride fuel would produce much more blast and flash for each unit of neutron flux, and would require a much larger fission explosion to set it off. The disadvantage of using D-T fuel is that tritium is very expensive, and decays at a rate of 5.5% a year. Combined with its increased complexity this makes ER warheads more expensive to build and maintain than other tactical nuclear weapons. To produce a 1 kt fusion yield 12.5 g of tritium and 5 g of deuterium are required.

The U.S. developed and produced three neutron warheads, a fourth was cancelled prior to production. All have been retired and dismantled.

The W66 warhead for the Sprint missile was the first ER warhead to be developed. It was manufactured during 1974-75, and was retired in Aug. 1975 after only a few months of service when the Sprint system was deactivated (about 70 were made). It had a yield of several kilotons (20 kt has been reported) and may or may not have used D-T fuel.
The W70 Mod 3 warhead for the Lance missile had a total yield about 1 kt which was 60% fusion and 40% fission. It was manufactured during 1981-83, and was retired by 1992; 380 were built.
The W79 Mod 0 warhead for the 8 inch artillery shell had a variable yield from 100 T to 1.1 kt. At the lowest yield it was a pure fission weapon, at the highest yield 800 T was from fusion (73%) and 300 T from fission. It was manufactured during 1981-1986; this version began retirement in the mid-80s, all were retired by 1992; 325 were built.
The W82 Mod 0 155 mm artillery shell, with variable yields similar tot he W79, was canceled in Oct 1983 without going in to production.
The Soviet Union, China, and France are all known to have developed neutron bomb designs and may have them in service. A number of reports have claimed that Israel has developed neutron bombs which, though they could be valuable on an armor battleground like the Golan Heights, are difficult to develop and require sigificant testing. This makes it unlikely that Israel has in fact acquired them.



link
 

FelixDeCat

Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
29,178
2,042
126
someone set us up the bomb (sorry couldnt help it)



I forget the name of the device...

fuel air bomb
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
xyyz

Those are FAE Fuel Air Explosive Bombs. Sometimes referred to as the poor man nukes.

gil11542

Biological warfare has been around for a long time. In medieval times they used to use catapults to hurl dead bodies and other disgusting things into castles that were under siege in an attempt to start an outbreak of disease.


FFMCobalt,"Remember, no. But I know what it is. I have two, actually."

Are you referring to those two things that you pull out that makes every female disappear?
 

xyyz

Diamond Member
Sep 3, 2000
4,331
0
0

depending on the yield of the device.... remember that nuclear devices are no longer massive bombs like Russia's "Tzar Bomba".. but they are smaller units and multiple units that strike several areas of a target.

you also need to talk about secondary damage... the effects of radiation etc... while some might be killed instantly with the blast, fires, immediate radiation... others will die a painful death over the matter of a few hours or days.
 

spanky

Lifer
Jun 19, 2001
25,716
3
81


<< FFMCobalt,"Remember, no. But I know what it is. I have two, actually."

Are you referring to those two things that you pull out that makes every female disappear?
>>





hahaha....