Neutron bomb, real or concept?, page 1

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times

Topic started on 16-8-2009 @ 01:49 PM by VitalOverdose

I once read that a Proton bomb was the next step on from the hydrogen bomb but ive never been able to find much info on the subject. Is this a real thing or just a product of Star Trek?

[edit on 16-8-2009 by VitalOverdose]

reply posted on 16-8-2009 @ 03:42 PM by spaceshiprepairman

reply to post by VitalOverdose

I have a small question. What would a proton bomb consist of, and(ok, more than one question. My bad), how destructive could it be? I never heard of such a thing, not even in my reading of hard- and really way out science fiction. Pardon my possible mis-understanding.

reply posted on 16-8-2009 @ 04:17 PM by Phage

No such animal.

There is no "one step up" from a fusion bomb. A true hydrogen bomb (which could be considered a proton bomb, I suppose, a hydrogen atom consisting of a single proton) probably wouldn't work very well. A pure hydrogen fusion reaction is relatively slow and does not release all that much energy. That's why thermonuclear devices use a combination of deuterium and tritium.

[edit on 8/16/2009 by Phage]

reply posted on 16-8-2009 @ 04:43 PM by VitalOverdose

Would a proton bomb be considered an anti-mater bomb then?

reply posted on 16-8-2009 @ 04:57 PM by Now_Then

reply to post by VitalOverdose

Not really - (although I'm not sure what you mean by proton bomb - are you sure your not referring to the neutron bomb??)

an anti matter bomb - well should be a 'matter / anti matter bomb is a theoretical 100% release of energy that would happen when matter comes into contact with anti matter... I suppose the bomb it's self would contain the anti matter, and to detonate then let that containment fail thus introducing matter from our world.

A neutron bomb I think is a very small nuke that is configures in such a way as to flood a massive area with radiation - essentually killing all living things but causing the minimum of damage to the actual infrastructure of say a city - although no one would be able to live in that city for a very long time.

A thermo nuclear bomb is a fusion reaction usually in hydrogen that uses a fission reaction (you standard nuke bomb - just quite a small one) as a detonator - they are much more powerful and for the same amount of power released they are actually cleaner... You also have the property of being able to 'dial in' the yield right up to the point of detonation... Which is cool because say the mission was launched and while the cruise missile is in flight the whole scenario changes - you can crank up the power of the same bomb - or dial it down for a more surgical strike.

I'm not really sure what phage was on about - a fusion reaction being slower? Never heard that before.

reply posted on 16-8-2009 @ 05:07 PM by VitalOverdose

A neutron bomb I think is a very small nuke that is configures in such a way as to flood a massive area with radiation - essentually killing all living things but causing the minimum of damage to the actual infrastructure of say a city - although no one would be able to live in that city for a very long time.

I think thats what i might have been getting it mixed up with ,Ill change the title of the thread now

Do we have them ? lol

[edit on 16-8-2009 by VitalOverdose]

reply posted on 16-8-2009 @ 05:18 PM by Now_Then

reply to post by VitalOverdose

It seems so...

A neutron bomb, technically referred to as an enhanced radiation weapon (ERW), is a type of tactical nuclear weapon formerly built mainly by the United States specifically to release a large portion of its energy as energetic neutron radiation. This contrasts with standard thermonuclear weapons, which are designed to capture this intense neutron radiation to increase its overall explosive yield. In terms of yield, ERWs typically produce about one-tenth that of most fission-type atomic weapons.[1] Even with their significantly lower explosive power, ERWs are still capable of much greater destruction than any conventional bomb. Meanwhile, relative to other nuclear weapons, damage is more focused on biological material than on material infrastructure

more info but it's from wiki - so you might want to check everything you read

reply posted on 16-8-2009 @ 05:22 PM by VitalOverdose

Thanks for the info

Ahhh.. i remember why i originally started search on this subject .A while back i was working on some animations of explosions and i spent a sometime collecting bits of film footage of every type of explosion i could find. The Neutron bomb was one of the only ones i couldn't find film of.

[edit on 16-8-2009 by VitalOverdose]

reply posted on 16-8-2009 @ 05:32 PM by Now_Then

I doubt it would be particularly impressive - just a small nuke blast - of course the radiation would be invisible.

reply posted on 16-8-2009 @ 05:40 PM by Xtrozero

Originally posted by Now_Then

A neutron bomb I think is a very small nuke that is configures in such a way as to flood a massive area with radiation - essentually killing all living things but causing the minimum of damage to the actual infrastructure of say a city - although no one would be able to live in that city for a very long time.

Actually I think the neutron bomb has a very short half life of like weeks and so you can detonate it, kill everyone with minimal damage to the buildings and then occupy the area in a few weeks. Hence the reason the US stopped the program in the 70s with it being too inhuman, and so the big bang, long term radiation is a lot more humanistic.

reply posted on 16-8-2009 @ 06:25 PM by Now_Then

reply to post by Xtrozero

That's interesting - personally I'd rather not get nuked... But give the choice between 2 sure deaths, 1. Slow, painful and everything else or 2. same day still in my boots and ammo in my rifle... I do know what I would choose.

A very short half life would make the weapon a lot more feesable - but it's one hell of a weapon, so it's banned now?

reply posted on 16-8-2009 @ 08:26 PM by Xtrozero

Originally posted by Now_Then
reply to post by Xtrozero

That's interesting - personally I'd rather not get nuked... But give the choice between 2 sure deaths, 1. Slow, painful and everything else or 2. same day still in my boots and ammo in my rifle... I do know what I would choose.

A very short half life would make the weapon a lot more feesable - but it's one hell of a weapon, so it's banned now?

Yes, it was viewed as inhumane and so I think Bush Sr ended the program, in the 70s Carter protested and limited the program, but up to 1990 or so we had them, maybe still do. Also any major country that has nukes most likely also have these too.

[edit on 16-8-2009 by Xtrozero]

reply posted on 16-8-2009 @ 09:22 PM by Ex_MislTech

Originally posted by Phage
There is no "one step up" from a fusion bomb. A true hydrogen bomb (which could be considered a proton bomb, I suppose, a hydrogen atom consisting of a single proton) probably wouldn't work very well. A pure hydrogen fusion reaction is relatively slow and does not release all that much energy.

I am afraid Tzar Bomba was a Hydrogen bomb, and well...

Tzar Bomba

It DID release much energy.

A lot of the huge nuclear tests were Hydrogen bombs.

As a former Guided Missile RADAR Tech for special weapons
and conventional weapons I have an unfair advantage in
knowing this bit of history.

[edit on 16-8-2009 by Ex_MislTech]

reply posted on 16-8-2009 @ 10:33 PM by Phage

reply to post by Ex_MislTech

Both deuterium and tritium are isotopes of hydrogen. The nucleus of an hydrogen atom contains a single proton. The nucleus of a deuterium (2H) atom contains one proton and a neutron. The nucleus of a tritium (3H) atom contains one proton and 2 neutrons. An element is defined by the number of protons in its nucleus so all three are actually hydrogen. When I said "pure hydrogen" I was speaking in terms of using "1H".

The Tsar Bomba was actually a three stage device (fission-fusion-fission). As in all thermonuclear devices, the first stage was a either a plutonium or uranium fission reaction. The fusion stage used the tritium-deuterium reaction.

Again, the tritium-deuterium (2H-3H) reaction is much faster and more energetic than the (1H-1H) reaction.

[edit on 8/16/2009 by Phage]

reply posted on 16-8-2009 @ 10:46 PM by Phage

reply to post by Xtrozero

The concept of the neutron bomb is an evil twist on the idea of strategic warfare. Rather than destroying infrastructure and the ability to make war, the idea is to kill via the radiation burst but minimize destruction of infrastructure. Kill everyone, come in a few weeks later and fire up the factories and power plants for your own use.

It also didn't fit in well with the theory of nuclear deterrence and the idea of Mutual Assured Destruction.

[edit on 8/16/2009 by Phage]

reply posted on 18-8-2009 @ 01:27 AM by Xtrozero

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Xtrozero

The concept of the neutron bomb is an evil twist on the idea of strategic warfare. Rather than destroying infrastructure and the ability to make war, the idea is to kill via the radiation burst but minimize destruction of infrastructure. Kill everyone, come in a few weeks later and fire up the factories and power plants for your own use.

It also didn't fit in well with the theory of nuclear deterrence and the idea of Mutual Assured Destruction.

[edit on 8/16/2009 by Phage]

Yes I agree, the thought of a WMD that is designed to target people is about in the same class as a bio or chemical weapon. If we thought about it, after WWII, nukes have been basically strategic deterrence. We did have tactical nukes in Europe, but once again they were within the strategic deterrence game plan.

reply posted on 18-8-2009 @ 01:50 AM by VitalOverdose

Even if the explosion is no that impressive i would like to have some video of it for reference. If anyone finds any i would love to see it.

reply posted on 18-8-2009 @ 02:00 AM by Phage

reply to post by VitalOverdose

The French did an atmospheric test in the South Pacific but didn't go beyond that. The Russians did some testing but never produced a weapon. The US only did underground testing.

The Chinese supposedly did an atmospheric test and the alleged photos are here:
uts.cc.utexas.edu...

Can't find any video. You've seen one mushroom cloud, you seen them all (or enough).

[edit on 8/18/2009 by Phage]

reply posted on 18-8-2009 @ 02:21 AM by VitalOverdose

Thanks for the link, that might help in tracking down some better pics. Im slightly suspicious of the lack of pics regarding the Neutron bomb so far.

When you look at the US and UK tests the the difference between the pattern of the clouds is quite significant. Probably caused by the location of the tests. The Chinese also seem to produce some very symmetrical cloud patterns.

[edit on 18-8-2009 by VitalOverdose]

reply posted on 18-8-2009 @ 07:36 AM by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Neutron bombs are probably in secret limited arsenals of the US, Russia and China. I know they have all officially tried developing them, so unofficially they probably have some produced. I doubt it would be smart to use them though since they are even more spooky and provocative than a regular tactical nuke.

One thing I would like to note is that EMP weapons are also developed (officially or not) by the three superpowers. Reportedly, Russia has even made an EMP device as small as a pop can and it has a radius of one or two city blocks. IMO that is a much better alternate to destroying everyone by radiation.

Pages: << 1 2 3 >> ^^TOP^^