Neutron Bomb

[quizzelsnatch]

somebody mentioned this in another thread. Please tell me all about this type of bomb. it sounds very interesting.

 

[The Boston Dangler]

a specially designed nuclear device detonates, giving off a large pulse of neutrons. instead of the typical shock wave and fireball, the invisible(?) neutron pulse penetrates eveything in its range. this means killing all life on a cellular level, as well as instantly frying any electronics.

the idea was to drop this on the enemy, killing everyone instantly, then marching in without problems.

 

[Gibsons]

Text

scroll about 2/3s down the page to get to the neutron bomb part.

A neutron bomb is basically a nuclear bomb that's been optimized to release neutrons. Most nukes try to contain the neutrons as long as possible in order to increase explosive yield.

 

[IEC]

Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler
a specially designed nuclear device detonates, giving off a large pulse of neutrons. instead of the typical shock wave and fireball, the invisible(?) neutron pulse penetrates eveything in its range. this means killing all life on a cellular level, as well as instantly frying any electronics.

the idea was to drop this on the enemy, killing everyone instantly, then marching in without problems.

Sounds about right. I don't know about frying electronics though, since it has no EMP pulse. Neutrons probably might fry them though.

 

[everman]

Enhanced Radiation weapons were used as anti-missile defense.

 

[The Boston Dangler]

great link gibsons. i didn't realize the effective radius of these weapons was so limited. so, i'm changing my constuction plans. so long neutron bomb, hello new pc!

 

[cableguy44]

I have heard that when they built the atomic bomb that the math equation never stopped that it was supposed to keep going until all life was destroyed. Anybody heard that or more importantly are there really weapons out there that can destroy life on the earth.

 

[The Boston Dangler]

Some scientists thought the bomb would ignite the atmosphere. They said the same thing about underwater testing. Ha, scientists, what do they know? 😛

Destroy all life? No.
Destroy all life as we know it? You betcha. Not with 1 or 2 bombs, but a dozen or two of the really big ones will be the end of humanity, and most life on the surface. The lucky ones are killed in the blast. Most will die of poisoning and starvation. In developed countries, like the US, just 1 nuke of any size, will instantly start coast to coast riots, with millions dead.

Have you ever seen The Road Warrior? Not nearly as cool as that.

 

[uOpt]

Originally posted by: cableguy44
I have heard that when they built the atomic bomb that the math equation never stopped that it was supposed to keep going until all life was destroyed. Anybody heard that or more importantly are there really weapons out there that can destroy life on the earth.

Before the first atomic bomb Edward Teller (one of the brightest minds at Los Alamos, later built the hydrogen bomb, but at that time he was young) suggested to Oppenheimer and Gorves that it could ignite the atmosphere.

They assigned Enrico Fermi, an older and one of their most reliable mathematicians to the task of computing whether that was a real threat or not. His result was it was not and they detonated one bomb in the trinity test and gave the other two to the Japanese.

Later it came out that Fermi had been wrong, but then so was Teller. It saved the U.S. government's liability insurance a good chunk of money - like paying for the destruction of all land-based life and property 🙂

The story is often recalled incorrectly as Teller being the one who made the miscalculation. Teller was much too junior at the time to entrust him with this task, Fermi produced the result that the decision to test the bomb was based on.

 

[uOpt]

Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler
a specially designed nuclear device detonates, giving off a large pulse of neutrons. instead of the typical shock wave and fireball, the invisible(?) neutron pulse penetrates eveything in its range. this means killing all life on a cellular level, as well as instantly frying any electronics.

the idea was to drop this on the enemy, killing everyone instantly, then marching in without problems.

Well, the effect obviously depends on distance to the explosion and to the shielding.

There is no "all dead" or "all alife" in any of this. There is a chance to die or be disabled, or injured based on distance, exposure and shielding.

The major target for the neutron bomb were Russian armor formatons running across Germany, and therein lies the problem: a full tank (as in main battle tank, not thin armored vehicles like APCs and SP artillery) is actually a pretty good shield against nuclear weapons, normal and neutron alike.

The Soviets, not being stupid, also applied thick lead liners to the inside of tanks and some APC models (namely the T-64 tank).

Note that none of that makes it "safe" or "is effective". Stop thinking in black and white. Being in a tank and lining the tank with leads lowers the radius that you can withstand the nuclear blast (or the one from a neutron weapon), and that means for a certain number of fired Western weapons you have a higher amount of combat effective, if mortally wounded, Russian armor formations running around.

The neutron bomb was mainly withdrawn from service because of the fear of "Kamikaze" tank battalions. A lof of tankers would know the neutron bomb hit them badly enough that they would die in the next weeks and then run amok with no regards to their own safety or continued resupply. Since the main weakness of the Warshaw Pakt forces was vulnerability of command and logistics it would have been counterproductive to "free" them of these considerations.

 

[irwincur]

Destroy all life as we know it? You betcha. Not with 1 or 2 bombs, but a dozen or two of the really big ones will be the end of humanity, and most life on the surface.

Sorry, but I think the bomb is getting a bit too much credit here.

It would take a hell of a lot more than a dozen or two to end life as we know it. Something like 1000 - 2000 would be a start, but probably still far short of the goal. The biggest bombs were not much bigger than those tested during the height of the cold war. If anything, average yields, and levels of radiation have dropped a lot since then. New bombs are more portable and much cleaner.

What is the point of wiping out a civilization if you can never re-settle. Clean nukes fix that problem within a few decades.

 

[uOpt]

Trying to eliminate the planet with a series of bombs is futile.

The atmosphere fire would have been the only decent chance to do so but as we know Teller blew it 🙂

 

[The Boston Dangler]

Originally posted by: irwincur

Destroy all life as we know it? You betcha. Not with 1 or 2 bombs, but a dozen or two of the really big ones will be the end of humanity, and most life on the surface.

Sorry, but I think the bomb is getting a bit too much credit here.

It would take a hell of a lot more than a dozen or two to end life as we know it. Something like 1000 - 2000 would be a start, but probably still far short of the goal. The biggest bombs were not much bigger than those tested during the height of the cold war. If anything, average yields, and levels of radiation have dropped a lot since then. New bombs are more portable and much cleaner.

What is the point of wiping out a civilization if you can never re-settle. Clean nukes fix that problem within a few decades.

Clean nukes, eh? OK, if you say so.