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.

 

Suitcase Nukes (AkA Neutron Bombs)?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 6 2004 @ 09:39 AM
link   
I have been aware that mini-nukes were missing, the so called "suitcase" nukes devices. What I didn't understand is that these were Neutron based devices. That changes everything. These devices would only destroy living tissue. Blast destruction is minimal. These devices make nuclear war "thinkable". Radiation dissipates quickly. Infrastructure could be reused with minimal damage. One of the "big" they would never nuke us reasonings was the mass destruction of buildings etc. Opinions? Data?

www.rense.com...




posted on Dec, 6 2004 @ 05:04 PM
link   
Like from "Shadow Ops"? Dunno, it makes sense that there are those though



posted on Dec, 6 2004 @ 07:03 PM
link   
I don't know, rense.com isn't always the most reliable of sources from what I've heard. Neutron bombs are in theory awesome weapons for military purposes. For terrorist purposes there useless, simply nuclear bombs make bigger, more noticable bangs, leave lethal radiation, destroy everything and create lethal fallout. So nuclear bombs are a little more openly destructive which makes them better for terrorist purposes. So if there is a terrorist WMD attack, expect biological, chemical, or nuclear warheads, probably not neutron warheads.



posted on Dec, 6 2004 @ 08:34 PM
link   
Portable and Neutron bomb can't really fit in one sentence since a nuclear bomb needs to be detonated on high alltitude if I remember correctly...



posted on Dec, 6 2004 @ 08:39 PM
link   
Nukes can be detonated at any altitude, they simply work better at high altitudes.



posted on Dec, 6 2004 @ 08:40 PM
link   
What I mean is, Neutron bombs need to detonate at high altitudes, they aren't a standard nuke...



posted on Dec, 6 2004 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by cyberdude78
Neutron bombs are in theory awesome weapons for military purposes. For terrorist purposes there useless, simply nuclear bombs make bigger, more noticable bangs, leave lethal radiation, destroy everything and create lethal fallout.


Well, if you think about the panic that a sudden deluge of radiation sickness could cause in a city I would say that such a bomb, if practical (not sure about GroundZero's assessment as this is not my AOE) could be quite effective. How would the authorities explain such a mass sickness? People would flee the city in fear of getting radiation sickness. Now, the chances of contracting such sickness would certainly diminish over time (perhaps quickly, perhaps slowly) but people would not think about that -- they would think like most people would in that situation -- they would stay away from the city no matter what anyone says. How would we measure the economic impact?



posted on Dec, 6 2004 @ 08:47 PM
link   
This issue has been brought up numerous times. Please Check HERE and contribute to one of the Many existing threads.

As far as Rense goes, it is what it is. You have to decide for yourself what is True and What is Not. We have been sourced by them numerous times, for Legit things.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join