It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

anybody heard of a neutron bomb

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 30 2004 @ 06:03 PM
link   
Yeah i have some crazy idea thats probably so ludicris as to what this is.
AS far as i kno a neutron bomb is a bomb that somehow kills all surrounding life but leaves everything else in contact. If anyone here has any answers id like to know Whats it made with, does it had a detonation altitude like nukes, Does it leave radiation behind, Is it incredibly brutal of a death or more instant, What the hell is a neutron bomb gonna do to a city the size of toronto or something wouldn't that be ridiculous.




posted on Nov, 30 2004 @ 06:32 PM
link   
a nutron boomb is a spicaly Nuk desined with a high burst of short lived radachion . exploded about 2 miles up above a city sends the radacgion down at a leathel leavel but little to no explosive force reaches the ground . then everone dies from radachion poisin leaving the city intack but empty and ready to be oppicied in a matter of weeks.



posted on Nov, 30 2004 @ 06:41 PM
link   
From what I was told in chemestry class the Nutron bomb, which we were supose to have been produceing during the Reagan era, is dentented above the target. The radiation rains down, and the air is clean in less then an hour. The people will be exsperenceing radiation sickness, and be dead in about a week. I got that info a long time ago, so dont know if it is still correct.



posted on Nov, 30 2004 @ 06:45 PM
link   
Olivia.

Blonde Aussie C & W singer, turned pop star, pre-Kylie Minogue days.

Starred in Grease, opened a chain of Australian kitsch stores across the US, recovered from cancer in the past decade.




*apologies to nuclear physicists*



posted on Nov, 30 2004 @ 09:35 PM
link   
well that clears most my questions up but i had another thought well eating my crispix at 10:30 at night. Do you think food would be spoiled as well and what of the water sytems would neutrons affect the way machines work and is this weapon actually in a lab somewhere?



posted on Nov, 30 2004 @ 09:59 PM
link   
Neutron bombs were made years ago. Nothing new.



posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 01:50 AM
link   
yeah neutron warheads have been around since the 70's. The warhead is tuned to produce far more fast neutrons than a normal nuclear weapon. These are able to penetrate materials such as walls and tank armour.
It was originally developed by the US to counter the mass Soviet armour in Europe.



posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 02:29 AM
link   
Neutron Bomb is a thermonuclear bomb .The neutron bomb differs from standard nuclear weapons insofar as its primary lethal effects come from the radiation damage caused by the neutrons it emits. It is also known as an enhanced-radiation weapon (ERW).
www.atomicarchive.com...www.manuelsweb.com...
Here's an interview with Sam Cohen the inventor of neutron bomb
www.manuelsweb.com...
here's a nice article on neutron bombs and their effective use:www.cato.org...



posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 04:39 AM
link   
Magic,
I dont know the efects of a Nutron Bomb on electronics. Was told it takes very thick walls of concreet to shield from them. So the link above would probably be good place to look for that.
About the electronics though, the US does have a EMP bomb for that, if I rember right.



posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 05:05 AM
link   
Do you know what the radius of an EMP bombs is and how long it's affect last? And would it be possible to shut this whole country down?



posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 07:11 AM
link   
One of the better places to find shelter for a neutron bomb would be to have ashelter under a swimming pool or under a pond as water catches thermal neutrones better than most metals Wich is exactly why neutrones are so deadly for humans mainly consisting of water...



posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 05:45 PM
link   
trezpiterian
I do not know what the leathel readial of an EMP bomb would be off hand. But from what I have read, they seem to be made to be more targeted, so any one useing one would need to target where ever the critical electronics happen to be. Hear is where the info is on ATS.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It really is pretty informative. I am suprised the Gov let that much info on it slip out.



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 06:48 AM
link   
Omfg learn how to spell.



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 07:45 AM
link   
Fr33man
Guessing you are referring to me, I never have, and never will be able to spell.



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 08:59 AM
link   
Alright first things first i posted this thread for a reason if you have nothing intelligent to say then say nothing as it is arrogant. Ignorance is acceptable as it is curable so please have some manors.

By the way I thought of something to do with the emp thing even though its a little off topic i think emp is sheildable by gold or lead. thus would neutrons be stopped by a thin gold layer as well .



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 09:26 AM
link   
Magickesists
With the EMP, which is Electro Mangentic Puls. Yes it can be shielded, but it has to be shielded with most likely a ferris materal. But as for the Nutrons, I was told it takes up to 6 feet of led or concreet to stop a nutron, nast little buggers they are



posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Magickesists
Alright first things first i posted this thread for a reason if you have nothing intelligent to say then say nothing as it is arrogant. Ignorance is acceptable as it is curable so please have some manors.

By the way I thought of something to do with the emp thing even though its a little off topic i think emp is sheildable by gold or lead. thus would neutrons be stopped by a thin gold layer as well .


"Nuetron Bombs" and "EMP bombs" are very different (although both are based on standard thermonuclear devices).

If you remember from high school chemistry or physics, a nuetron is a (realitvely) large uncharged particle. These are very difficult to stop, as most radiated particles are stopped via charge interactions. Nuetrons are only really attracted to single potons, hence the best things to stop nuetrons are materials with large amounts of free hydrogen. Lead will slow fast nuetrons down (and are utilized for that in nuclear reactors) - but will never really effectively stop them. Concrete is fairly effective due to water that is cured into it. The most effective materials are hydrocarbons (i.e. oil, and more importantly plastics) and water. This is why nuetrons are so lethal - they will go right through the steel of a tank and deposit their energy in the water of your body.

EMP weapons produce very strong electromagentic fields - in a thermonuclear weapon this is a byproduct of gamma radiation interacting with the atmosphere. Although there is very little unclassified research on EMP effects, it has been speculated that a single small warhead detonated at high altitude (perhaps 100,000-200,000 ft.) over Kansas would shut down most of the United States. On a side note, this is why the ABM system allowed under the ABM treaty that the US installed near Grand Forks, ND was dismantled - they realized that the high altitude nudets from the ABM missiles would likely damage our missiles on the ground anyway - not to mention shutting down power across the rest of the US. Russia, however, still has a nuclear armed interceptor based system deployed in Moscow.......



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 07:12 PM
link   
My question reguarding the Neutron Bomb is, why aren't we using it? From everything i've read these would be far superior to sending in troops on a massive scale to take a city or terrorist camp, after using a couple of these you could send in a relatively small unit of troops to finish cleaning up. Either they're too expensive to use extensively or is it that the rest of the planet would be mad that we can wage war, kill our enemy and have relatively few casualties? Any thoughts on this?



posted on Apr, 23 2005 @ 01:31 AM
link   
Well there are a lot of weapons which we can use to end wars quickly, but they are deemed to be inhumane and just too deadly to use. I think using radiational sickens to kill the enemy will go down too well in the international community. I guess if there was a real nasty war we could use one but I doubt it.



posted on Apr, 23 2005 @ 04:02 AM
link   

My question reguarding the Neutron Bomb is, why aren't we using it? From everything i've read these would be far superior to sending in troops on a massive scale to take a city or terrorist camp, after using a couple of these you could send in a relatively small unit of troops to finish cleaning up. Either they're too expensive to use extensively or is it that the rest of the planet would be mad that we can wage war, kill our enemy and have relatively few casualties? Any thoughts on this?

Your question regarding the Neutron Bomb is why don't we use it more?

NEWSFLASH: Irradiating humans is always considered evil. How would you enjoy being baked in a microsecond? Watching your skin fall off your body? Crapping your liver?


[edit on 23-4-2005 by smallpeeps]




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join