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.

 

Neutron Bombs

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 12 2004 @ 11:37 PM
link   
I was wondering if the Neutron bomb was the same kind of bomb that would only kill people but leave things like houses and trees and whatnot alone? If it is why didn't the military explore this option? It seems like a really good weapon. -Muzz




posted on Apr, 12 2004 @ 11:57 PM
link   
They did thats why there is a neutron bomb!!

Check out the Lance Missile. It was deployed in Europe by both the USA and UK during the cold war.



posted on Apr, 13 2004 @ 12:09 AM
link   
I believe almost all nukes made in the last 20 years or so have been neutron bombs. They've been improving this technology over time with the goal of creating nukes that are clean enough to use not only for war, but for large construction projects like unground excavations and building canals and seaports.

There are some excellent, informative websites about nuclear weapons. Taxpayers should be interested to know what the feds are spending on, and why.

nuclearweaponarchive.org...



posted on Apr, 13 2004 @ 12:15 AM
link   
Neutron Bomb



Neutron bombs, also called enhanced radiation weapons (ER), are small nuclear weapons in which the burst of neutrons generated by the fusion reaction is intentionally not absorbed inside the weapon, but allowed to escape.


Is this the same as EM bombs?



posted on Apr, 13 2004 @ 01:20 AM
link   
Wasn't there a movie about a Nuetron bomb? And there was like a nearby town with a mutant monster that ate people? Creepy movie...



posted on Apr, 13 2004 @ 01:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Condorcet
I believe almost all nukes made in the last 20 years or so have been neutron bombs. They've been improving this technology over time with the goal of creating nukes that are clean enough to use not only for war, but for large construction projects like unground excavations and building canals and seaports.

There are some excellent, informative websites about nuclear weapons. Taxpayers should be interested to know what the feds are spending on, and why.

nuclearweaponarchive.org...


You have the right idea, but a neutron bomb is HIGH radiation, low yield - so it would be MORE "dirty" then a conventional nuke. This is how it kills people without destroying buildings - through the use of radiation poisoning. You are correct though, clean nukes are the next gen of weapons.




Is this the same as EM bombs?

I don't know if you are reffering to an EMP bomb or not, but if so no - an EMP bomb sends out a pulse that destroys electrical hardware. An EMP pulse is created though when a nuke goes off.



posted on Apr, 13 2004 @ 01:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
I don't know if you are reffering to an EMP bomb or not, but if so no - an EMP bomb sends out a pulse that destroys electrical hardware. An EMP pulse is created though when a nuke goes off.


Yes, I was referring to EMP bombs. Thanks for the clarificaition.



posted on Apr, 13 2004 @ 03:00 AM
link   
So the Neutron Bomb is the one that doesn't destroy houses and trees and whatnot right?



posted on Apr, 13 2004 @ 03:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by muzz
So the Neutron Bomb is the one that doesn't destroy houses and trees and whatnot right?


Yes. It has a very small yield, so there is very little damage to buildings. I'm not sure how plant life reacts to radiation, so they may or may not die - I couldn't tell you, though I would think most life forms would die from it. Also, keep in mind that because of the amount of radiation used to kill people, the area the bomb was dropped on would be uninhabitable for quite some time - most likely longer then a normal nuke. That is why small clean nukes are being researched as we speak - so we can go nuke some place and not have to deal with the after effects. I have my doubts if this is a good thing.......



posted on Apr, 13 2004 @ 03:23 AM
link   
When you saqy yield you mean explosives? so this is just a radiation bomb really. Why would there even need to be any explosives involved? -Muzz



posted on Apr, 13 2004 @ 04:16 AM
link   
Yes, yield = size of the explosion. Yes, it is designed to scatter large amounts of radiation to kill people.

The explosion is needed to spread the radiation. That mushroom cloud you see in a nuclear explosion contains smoke, dust, ash - but more importantly, radioactive dust. Thus, all of this dust is put very high in air and travels very far before it reaches the ground.

Alternatively, you can detonate a nuclear weapon in the atmosphere in order to spread that radioactive dust over very large distances. I am not sure, but these might be outlawed in international treaties - im not sure.

In any case, the explosion is used to spread the radioactive material, and thus is used to creat the radius of the weapon.

BTW - I am not a bomb "expert" or anything, so I could be wrong on any one of my comments. I have read a good amount on nukes though, and this is how I understand them to work.



posted on Apr, 13 2004 @ 06:35 AM
link   
mad man i believe ur right about the neutron bomb because iv done a little skimming of neutron bombs and thats what it said the bomb done



posted on Apr, 13 2004 @ 06:46 AM
link   
thank you for the conformation



posted on Apr, 13 2004 @ 07:28 AM
link   
Try doing a Google search on "enhanced radiation weapons".



posted on Apr, 13 2004 @ 08:22 AM
link   
Neutron bombs where developed as a way of stopping soviet armour columns as the large amounts of gamma radiation produced could easily penetrate tank armour



posted on Apr, 13 2004 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Eddie999
Neutron bombs where developed as a way of stopping soviet armour columns as the large amounts of gamma radiation produced could easily penetrate tank armour


I did not know this. Thanks for informing me.


I'm assuming that these were the first detterent against an invasion of germany?



posted on Apr, 13 2004 @ 09:16 PM
link   
Was this technology even around for germany? I can understand the use of atomic weapons to keep germany from rising a third time.



posted on Apr, 13 2004 @ 11:21 PM
link   
here you go, www.manuelsweb.com...








posted on Apr, 13 2004 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzz
Was this technology even around for germany? I can understand the use of atomic weapons to keep germany from rising a third time.


I am talking about the cold war - the US and NATO in general had planned for an invasion of west Germany by the USSR. However. we didn't have enough troops there to hold off an all out attack, so most likely, these nuetron bombs would be used on the ranks of tanks and soldiers. Remember, from the late 40's up till the 90's every US weapon was designed to combat the USSR. One of NATO's great fears was that the USSR would invade western Europe, and thus we would be forced to nuke our allies land. Iguess on top of killing all our enemies, these weapons had the added bonus of not destroying our allies buildings.

Nice find Vadaar



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzz
I was wondering if the Neutron bomb was the same kind of bomb that would only kill people but leave things like houses and trees and whatnot alone? If it is why didn't the military explore this option? It seems like a really good weapon. -Muzz


As I understand it, it's a pretty horrible, slow death.

However, there are countries and power mongers who don't care a flip about someone else's horrible slow death.

I could easily imagine Russia using it against the USA, as well as Iran, NK, Syria, Venezuela, China, . . . even China doing it against Taiwan. I pray I'm wrong.

But in an era when "there is no right or wrong," about anything goes.

It's unclear to me whether we have any such but I think we should if only to counter the jerks more prone to use them.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join