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.

 

do you think that USA could use neutron weapons in Iran?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 04:35 AM
link   
I was thinking about possibility of using ER weapons over Iran.

This weapons have certain advantages - they could "clean" certain area from any defenders and open such area for special forces.

radiation would be very low. There is also something like impact on nuclear fuel. any nuclear fuel in impact radius would be destroyed.

do you know how high is radiation after using ER weapons and would they be able to kill people 50 meters under ground? as I know only water could stop ER radiation.

[edit on 10-4-2006 by gattaca]




posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 04:39 AM
link   
If we use anything nuclear, it'll be B61-11's. I can't imagine them using neutron bombs, since technically they don't exist.

Of course, B61-11's against the underground facilities. I'd expect B83's set to 1.2 megaton if we are retaliating against Iran's population centers after they attacked Israel/Europe/USA with nuclear weapons.



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 07:24 AM
link   
I heard they were planning on using bunker-busting tactical low-yield nuclear weapons. here it shows you that the Bush Administration has those plans for pre-emptive strikes, which I'm sure you've already seen on the site. But I think that is sort of foreshadowing for the use of those weapons if we ever were to get into a war with Iran. I would hope they wouldn't though; I can only see what the world would say about us then.



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 08:46 AM
link   
What would be the point of using neutron weapons? They would leave the nuclear facilities themselves pretty much untouched and only kill the workers. Iran could then easily have their programs up and running in short order bringing in new workers into their still near fully functional nuclear facilities.

You want to destroy the facilities more then the workers that can take years to rebuild. Any such attack even conventional is going to make Iran triple thier efforts in the nuclear program so you better hope any such attack cripples their program for years down the line.



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 01:00 PM
link   

I would hope they wouldn't though; I can only see what the world would say about us then.


The 'world' has hated America for a long long time. Look up usenet posts on groups.google.com from the 80's. Most of the 'world' sided with the Soviet Union when it came to them deploying the SS-20 vs our Pershing missiles.

Don't worry about the world. Worry about our survival.

[edit on 10-4-2006 by Monty22001]



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
What would be the point of using neutron weapons? They would leave the nuclear facilities themselves pretty much untouched and only kill the workers. Iran could then easily have their programs up and running in short order bringing in new workers into their still near fully functional nuclear facilities.

You want to destroy the facilities more then the workers that can take years to rebuild. Any such attack even conventional is going to make Iran triple thier efforts in the nuclear program so you better hope any such attack cripples their program for years down the line.



yes. but all the place would be clean from any defenders. So special units could land and enter into deeper levels to plant special explosive devices foe exaple. The place would be also visible from air so ground unit could coordinate air attack then. After operation they would be easily picked up.



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 01:09 PM
link   
You can't really send in troops after an ER blast. It'll still be very contaminated. It's best to just drop several B61-11's and take it out.



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 01:59 PM
link   
Like Monty22001 mentioned even if a Neutron weapon is used you still cant go into the blast area right away. Neutron radiation is short lived compared to other forms of radiation in normal nuclear weapons but you wouldnt want to go into the area for perhaps 48 hours after a blast.



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 02:21 PM
link   
The prompt neutrons from an ER weapon would irradiate metallic objects badly, besides the initial radiation from the blast. The metals in the area would emit a lot of beta radiation for a long time.

Also, the US will not use neutron bombs because officially they are not in the stockpile. They may or may not be exist, but if they do, they won't be used in this scenario.



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 02:38 PM
link   
The radiation from Neutron bombs destroys regular nuclear fuel????



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 02:50 PM
link   
Why just limit it to neutron weapons? From pictures I've seen of the place, a few thousand kilotons of radioactive firestorm Hell might be just the thing to jumpstart some effective urban renewal efforts. Start from scratch! Tabula rasa, baby!




posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Monty22001
You can't really send in troops after an ER blast.

Yeah, but you don't have to.



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Monty22001

I would hope they wouldn't though; I can only see what the world would say about us then.


The 'world' has hated America for a long long time. Look up usenet posts on groups.google.com from the 80's. Most of the 'world' sided with the Soviet Union when it came to them deploying the SS-20 vs our Pershing missiles.

Don't worry about the world. Worry about our survival.

[edit on 10-4-2006 by Monty22001]


Your survival? Look what your foreign policies have done to your 'survival'.
They've brought the after effects right up into CONUS.If the US uses pre-emptive nukes in Iran; well that's the end of the American success story of the 20th century. Really.. There's a lot of countries just waiting to take up the reins.



posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 04:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
The radiation from Neutron bombs destroys regular nuclear fuel????



yes. I'm not sure how does it works but after such explosion all nuclear fuel in the are would be rubbish.

ps-I wasn't sure how long ER contaminate the area. Somebody said that 48 hours is the right time.

But if we are talking about open area or steel/metal rooms? of course now I tnink that these nuclear bunker busters would be better,. or maybe some kind of combination?

I hope that Bush won't screw it up. Iran can't get these wapons.



posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 07:35 AM
link   
next people will be sayiong that Enhanced Radiation (or neutron) bombs are safe and clean [roll]


The ER or Neutron weapons in the US arsenal are based upon the W70 and the W79 designs.

They are still listed as being deployable - so i don`t know where any got the idea that they are all so secret.

salted nukes are the secret ones as no one will admit to having them (except israel who have stated they have them)




nicked from wiki


Neutron bombs, also called enhanced radiation bombs (ER weapons), are small thermonuclear weapons in which the burst of neutrons generated by the fusion reaction is intentionally not absorbed inside the weapon, but allowed to escape. The X-ray mirrors and shell of the weapon are made of chromium or nickel so that the neutrons are permitted to escape. Contrast this with cobalt bombs, also known as salted bombs.

This intense burst of high-energy neutrons is the principal destructive mechanism.

The term "enhanced radiation" refers only to the burst of ionizing radiation released at the moment of detonation, not to any enhancement of residual radiation in fallout.




read the bold part

THERMO-NUCLEAR


or BIG bang - high kilotonne to megatonne range warheads


BIG BANG


do i have to mention that its a BIG BANG

they are used in sky bursts (50,000 feet) to `drench` a target over a WIDE area with radiation - you kill everything , men women and children (and sheep and goats etc)


so great you nuke the target - who gets to bury/brun the bodies after you`ve killed everyone?



posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Monty22001
If we use anything nuclear, it'll be B61-11's. I can't imagine them using neutron bombs, since technically they don't exist.

Of course, B61-11's against the underground facilities. I'd expect B83's set to 1.2 megaton if we are retaliating against Iran's population centers after th Yes ey attacked Israel/Europe/USA with nuclear weapons.
Yes the nuetron bombs do exist,I know the maker of them my brothers in laws his father in law is a nucleur pysicist,and mom runs the atomic laboratory,2 of the nicest people you'll ever meet,after seeing them nothing is too far fetched



posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 10:29 AM
link   
If one considers Capt. Eric May's statements about the Battle of Baghdad Airport as being "truth", then a Neutron device (delivered by field piece) has already been "used" with great success and the airport was returned to "normal service" within only 2 days... USA won't hesitate to use such capability against Iran. Dr. Teller said in one of his papers from the 80's that the residual radiation effects could be 'tuned" for both intensity and duration. Yeah, unfortunately N-devices are the best tool for the job - clean out the South and the Straits of Hormuz are for the taking.



posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 10:30 AM
link   
It would seem that the best option could be to use a bunker buster EMP bomb. It would fry every circuit oin the facility, without the loss of life. It would leave a huge cost to replace every electric circuit in the facilities and would leave the US looking much better in the world's eyes than a nuclear blast would.



posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
next people will be sayiong that Enhanced Radiation (or neutron) bombs are safe and clean [roll]


The ER or Neutron weapons in the US arsenal are based upon the W70 and the W79 designs.

They are still listed as being deployable - so i don`t know where any got the idea that they are all so secret.



there are no more W-70 and W-79's in the Army's arsenal. We dismantled them all, between 1991-1992. This included the Lance, Pershing II, M454( 155mm), and the M4203CA1E1 (old 8").

Whoever is telling you all that the Army still has them is telling a tall-tale. The MOS for Nuclear Weapons Tech was 55G, and it was phased out in 1992. I should know; I was one of them.



posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 12:44 PM
link   
if thats the case then at this time the usa does not in fact have any deployable ER weapons.



and



It would seem that the best option could be to use a bunker buster EMP bomb. It would fry every circuit oin the facility, without the loss of life. It would leave a huge cost to replace every electric circuit in the facilities and would leave the US looking much better in the world's eyes than a nuclear blast would.



where do you honestly think a large EMP pulse will come from??

guess what

its from a LARGE NUKE.

[edit on 11/4/06 by Harlequin]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join