tipmo@oak.circa.ufl.edu (01/17/91)
From: tipmo@oak.circa.ufl.edu Awhile ago, (4-5 years) I remember reading an article in a magazine (Can't remember which) telling of a neutron bomb. I would like more information on this beast incuding the premise behind it. Are there any in existance today, and if so, would they be an appropriate response to a Chemical/Biological attack from Baghdad? ******************************************************************************* * Disclaimer: Some of these postings have been found to be an effective * * tool in the offending of the easily offended. So if you're one of * * them, do us both a favor, and don't read them! Thank you, and God * * Bless. * ******************************************************************************* *Internet: tipmo%maple.decnet@pine.circa.ufl.edu * *******************************************************************************
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (01/18/91)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: tipmo@oak.circa.ufl.edu >... telling of a neutron bomb. I would like more information >on this beast incuding the premise behind it. Are there any in existance today, >and if so, would they be an appropriate response to a Chemical/Biological attack >from Baghdad? The basic idea of a neutron bomb is to build a nuclear bomb that emits mostly high-energy radiation rather than blast and heat. Such a bomb would kill people but leave property relatively unscathed. This was thought to be of particular interest for a tactical nuclear war in Germany, where the Soviets had a huge advantage in manpower and tankpower and the war would be fought on friendly territory (where demolishing everything in sight was considered undesirable). In practice there are some limiting factors. You always get *some* blast and heat, for one thing. For another, this was another of these stupid tactical weapons that make first nuclear use -- with incalculable consequences and huge risks -- much more tempting. I think some neutron bombs, aka Enhanced Radiation Warheads, were built and deployed despite all the political flap about them. I could be wrong; I don't clearly remember how the uproar ended. Nobody with any sense considers nuclear weapons of any kind an appropriate response to anything non-nuclear. We are all much better off if nuclear weapons remain an ultimate last resort only. -- If the Space Shuttle was the answer, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology what was the question? | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
det@hawkmoon.MN.ORG (Derek E. Terveer) (01/22/91)
From: det@hawkmoon.MN.ORG (Derek E. Terveer) henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >In practice there are some limiting factors. You always get *some* blast >and heat, for one thing. A popular misconception seems to be that a "neutron bomb" only emits radiation of some sort and has either no blast/heat or insignificant blast/heat. I just want to emphasize that when Henry says *some* he means *some*, as in still very significant amounts of blast/heat. Perhaps a better label for these devices should have been "Reduced Blast/Heat/Etc. Warheads" instead of "Enhanced Radiation Warheads". -- Derek "Tigger" Terveer det@hawkmoon.MN.ORG - MNFHA, NCS - UMN Women's Lax, MWD I am the way and the truth and the light, I know all the answers; don't need your advice. -- "I am the way and the truth and the light" -- The Legendary Pink Dots