in encarta 2002 it says something about enhanced-radiation fusion (aka neutron) bombs in like the last sentence. it says it is supposedly cleaner than a fission-fusion bomb with no radioactive fallout bur would induce radioactivity in air and water

anybody know anything more?

Yeah, Just the thing you need if you are looking for a bomb that does less explosive damage, has more power in EMP, and kills far more people.

Am I the only one who thinks this kind of research is just insane?

I guess the objective of a weapon like this is to kill all the humans without the destruction of buildings.... so you can invade in a few hundred years and take over that nation without having to rebuild everything.

Why is it always the idiots that come up with the smart bombs?

Gazz

If we dont make it someone else will....and use it against us...hehe

The interesting thing about the neutron bomb is the lack of residual radiation. There is some, but it doesn't last for all that long, compared to a nuke. Personally, I support this research. We already have nukes that can wipe out a nation. If (heaven forbid) it ever came down to using a nuke, everything would be wiped out. At least with a neutron bomb, all of those people's monuments, their history, any documents they have, etc. would be preserved.

It is an older weapon that was revealed to the public in the early 70's it is a good weapon. However we have much better ones now that leave no radiation merely destroy population

TUT

We have to make these weapons. You know why?

Mutually Assured Destruction. It's the only known defense against nuclear war.

Originally posted by Esoterica
We have to make these weapons. You know why?

Mutually Assured Destruction. It's the only known defense against nuclear war.

Sadly, this concept is starting to be phased out and replaced with terrorism. That could be the way wars are fought in the future. You can't nuke terrorists, because they know no boarders.

Originally posted by junglejake

Sadly, this concept is starting to be phased out and replaced with terrorism. That could be the way wars are fought in the future. You can't nuke terrorists, because they know no boarders.

I said nuclear war. Conventional and unconventional warfare are entirely different issues. But right now, the only way to protect yourself from a full-out nuclear barrage is to have the ability to do the same to the enemy.

[Edited on 4-21-2004 by Esoterica]

NothingMakesSense - there are a few threads already on this subject - use the search option for it

As for MAD - It is the only way to deter nuclear attack. That is, till the US gets our SBLs (space based lasers)

Then we can nuke all we want and no one can do a thing about it (thats why Russia and the ChiComs are having such a # fit over it)

Back to the bomb - it was designed to be used against Soviet tank divisions in case they were to try to attack Europe. They are perfect for this because the radiation passes right through the steel.

Well great, now i know what they do. But how do you MAKE one? Anybody know?

The inherent advantage from a neutron bomb is there is no residual radiation, so the people die but a couple days later the winners came come in and claim everything with no problems. Again, correct me if i'm wrong.

Originally posted by NothingMakesSense
Well great, now i know what they do. But how do you MAKE one? Anybody know?

The inherent advantage from a neutron bomb is there is no residual radiation, so the people die but a couple days later the winners came come in and claim everything with no problems. Again, correct me if i'm wrong.

Why would you want to know how to build one??

For those of us who actually maintained them, all the diagrams posted on the web, especially at the FAS website, are wrong.

The warheads contained an item called a tritium tube, which was used for radiation enhancement.

Detructive against civilian and military personell, but caused little property damage.

the US Army dismantled these weapons in 1991-1992.