The Kindler, Gentler WMD - Neutron Bombs

Why are neturon bombs not as well known as "regular" thermonuclear weapons? How come it seems like most people have never heard of them?

 

I thought they decided not to make them.

I sorta recall yers ago some stink about a bomb that was intended to only kill living creatures and leave he rest standing, sort of like it was just to horrid an idea.

Why not just unleash a nation-sized killer chili and bean fart? that would effectively clear eveybody out and neutralize the enemy

 

Carter started the US on building 'em.

Everyone sing along:

Efficiency and progress is ours once more
Now that we have the Neutron bomb
It's nice and quick and clean and gets things done
Away with excess enemy
But no less value to property
No sense in war but perfect sense at home...
The sun beams down on a brand new day
No more welfare tax to pay
Unsightly slums gone up in flashing light
Jobless millions whisked away
At last we have more room to play
All systems go to kill the poor tonite....

 

"Neutron bombs" aren't thermonuclear in the same sense that a fusion weapon is. Instead of just burning up all the reaction mass to produce a nice big fire ball. The neutron weapons use a different isotope (can't recall off hand) that releases much less thermal and lower spectrum radiation and a bigger burst of neutrons and hard X and Gamma rays.
The US never offically built one, but I'm sure the research and computer simulation continued...

They are still atomic weapons, with all the taboos and political ramifications that go with them.

 

Neutron bombs are quite efficient at killing people and animals plus make the cleanup much nicer.

They kind of cook you from the inside out instead of the outside in like in the typical atomic bombs.

 

Actually the Neutron Bomb went into production under Reagan. It's used primarily against.... Tanks. Usually they are launched utilizing a 155 round or a small tactical missile. They are pretty much a conventional hydrogen bomb without the uranium wrapper.
What it does is cook the tank crews, who would normally protected by the armour of their tanks.

Interesting weapon. But the US isn't the only ones who have 'em.

 

From what is a neutron bomb?

"Some types of armor, like that of the M-1 tank, employ depleted uranium which can undergo fast fission, generating additional neutrons and becoming radioactive. "

That rather sucks...:down:

Bad nuke! BAD!

 

Actually, in my age group (I remember the 50's) the neutron bomb was a term familiar to most people. Some considered that the temptation to use such a weapon (as opposed to thermo-nukes) would be greater in that it killed human beings but did not destroy infrastructure. The whole idea behind mutually assured destruction was that these weapons were so horrible that it would be madness to use them, there could be no winners. The use of neutron bombs would enable the destruction of the population but leave inhabitable cities as the radiation load was relatively short-lived. There was a lot of debate on the issue.
I was a little closer to the nuclear issue, my dad refueled reactors for the Navy when I was a kid. He used to bring home radiation suits for me to wear when I delivered newspapers on rainy days.

 

That stuff sounds like the rich man's biological weapon. Nasty.

 

The interesting thing about these weapons was that the US actually had plans to use them in Europe should a massive Soviet invasion take place. Thousands of Soviet tanks stopped by killing their crews, wait a couple of days, decontaminate the tanks, turn 'em around and use 'em against the Soviets.

Now the Chinese are rumbling that they would use them against Taiwan should that war take place.

 

I know what neutron bombs are, and how they work. I'm more interested in the practical/political reasons as to why they don't represent a greater percentage of existing nuclear arsenals.

 

Maybe because there is enough already to blow up the entire solar system?
I never understood what those reductions negotiated with Russia accomplished. Are we really safer with enough to blow up the planet 100 times rather than 200 times? It's just as scary to me.

 

It's a battle field weapon. Small and launched via a 155mm artillery shell or a very short range missile. Don't need a lot of 'em (but there is prob. a couple of hundred of 'em).

No particular use in throwing it a couple of Thousand miles since the soviets or whomever would then just hose down their own tanks or positions and reoccupy 'em. Nah, if you nuke something that far away you want it to stay F'ed up.

 

Please excuse the sarcasm, I was serious with my earlier answer.

I'm not kidding, everybody freaked at the thought of a bomb made just for killing people.
It's comfy for citizens to imagine that we're just blowing the crap out of some buildings and factories. The public can accept intended property destruction and go "oh my, some collateral damage, what a shame, we didn't really mean to hurt those children, they just got in the way, boo-hoo-hoo we're sorry it was an accident."

But the neutron bomb erased all doubt--it was only for killing humans--too awful a concept for people to swallow. It destroyed the image of a kinder, gentler nation fighting to spread peace and democracy--made us appear more evil than our enemies.

Think of the mindset that developed terms like "friendly fire," and maybe you'll get my drift. The defense dept made getting shot through the head by your own side sound like a pleasant little accident.

The neutron bomb made us appear hell-bent on killing and that was NOT the image Ronnie and the Pentagon wanted. And that's just what the citizens saw when they heard neutron bomb. Screw all this fancy tactical talk, the US didn't want to "look like" killers.

America lost the gung-ho war attitude in Viet Nam after the nightly news started showing pictures of mangled US soldiers and napalmed babies. In Iraq the press was reigned in with the "embedded journalist" crap--news viewers saw a lot of soldiers and impressive firepower, but did you see any mangled Iraqi children? Hell no-- the embedded guys weren't allowed free access, they settled for a controlled situation with the lure of better better ratings from live video feeds. Everyone wanted Saddam out of there, but a few dead babies on CNN and Fox would have killed the public support real early.

damn, time to shut up and store the soap box, and I was just getting warmed up

 

FYI, "friendly fire" is not a term used much in the military, I believe it was coined by the press during Viet Nam. Military term for casualties inflicted by non-hostile forces is "blue on blue".

 

I first heard the term 'friendly fire' from an enlisted friend. I had no idea of the origin, egg on me for assuming. but then 'blue on blue' sounds pretty cleaned-up too

 

It's not a cleand up made-for-TV term - it's from military war gaming that's centuries old. The good guys are blue - as in the colors worn by the patriots in the American Revolutionary War, Civil War, etc. Bad guys are red.

 

still, to belabor the discussion, 'friendly fire' sound more like something a PR firm would invent rather than a phrase that would be coined by a news media outlet, unless we'd insinuate there was a conservative media bias

 

Actually, I believe it was the press themselves that made the decision not to show that stuff this time. People really don't want to see it. Not good for ratings.

 

if the press HAD it and did decided NOT to show it, then it was a press decision ...

I heard an interview of several independent freelancers on the BBC; they said that the media access was very controlled, they got the action shots from combat, but were very restricted otherwise. nobody wants to see a crispy baby, but if it had been broadcast, a lot of the rah-rah-go-troops enthusiasm would have gone silent.

no matter what the cause or who the enemy, war is brutal and ugly and no politician or leader wants to be associated with the gore, just the glory