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 bomb, real or concept?

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


I was in the AF during the mid- to late 80's. Everyone on "mobility" had to go through nuclear, biological, chemical training.

The neutron bomb was mentioned during these trainings.

We were told that the 'great' thing about them was they killed only life forms through radiation. Except for a small radius immediately below the blast, there was no destruction to buildings. And the amount of waiting time before troops were marched through the irradiated area was minimal -as opposed to thermo-nuc weapons.




posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 01:20 PM
link   
The neutron bomb would leave structures intact, for the most part.
The town or city inhabited would get sick and die.

This has great conspiracy theory value for the end of WWII if the
neutron bomb were in the hands of the enemy and we knew about it.
Worked in with German nuclear knowledge and possession of many
types of bombs may have precipitated the Seven Days in May card
shuffle to end the war.

Was a nuke and neutron bomb card played by Germany.



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by TeslaandLyne
 


The neutron bomb was never intended as a anti infrastructure weapon, to clear out cities.
Its comparatively low yeild is still much larger than that of any conventional munition, and would still cause extensive damage to any town or city it was dropped on.

Although the japanese certainly detonated an atom bomb on or around 8-12-1945, and the germans may have developed a bomb, there was noway they had nuetron bombs.

Given hitlers propensity to rush in and use any new untried wonder weapon, even to the exclusion of proven weapon systems, if they had them they would have used them.

It is for this reason that I dont believe they ever developed a working nuclear weapon, if they had it they would have used it.

But the idea that one might have been used at Kursk intrigues me, but if thay had one for use at kursk then they surely would have used another over the next 2 years.

And the battle of kursk was extremely well documented by soviet combat photographers, many of whom crawled along with frontline troops while filming.
Any detonation would surley have been documented by one of the literaly hundreds of combat photogs.



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by punkinworks09
 


There is a youtube video that mentions Kursk in regards to atomic
bomb testing.

The German neutron bomb is thought to be tested in North Africa under
Rommel. There are postcards of mushroom cloud over New York
given the troops as moral boosters.
No proof but who will fund the search for the bomb sight, no one
from the Illuminati so we remain in the dark.

Mercury is said to be involved in the German neutron bomb and
since also in UV or florescent bulbs I would call it a UV bomb as
the bright Sun UV causes DNA damage.
A slow death in the years perchance but part of some intel ploy
perhaps to evoke unwarranted havoc for Truman if placed off the
East Coast in another card played by intel for Operation Paperclip.



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 03:12 PM
link   
neutron bombs are the perfect weapon because they have a great yeild value with out the fallout factor. Even if you drop them across the globe the rads would all disapate after a week and what vegetation and animals not in the fallout would be able to retake everything. not that certain species of anything would live or die. Bill gates has a facillity they are calling the ark i don't know the exact name but it hosts all documented plant and animal samples from seeds to dna and etc. and yes neutron bombs are real and everybody has them.



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by TeslaandLyne
 


OK there no way an atom bomb was used in North africa, yet another well documented engagment. I had an uncle who served in NA and fought with pattons II corp, had a nuclear weapon been used word of it would have spread like wildfire through the ranks, and people would have surely talked about it.



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by punkinworks09
reply to post by TeslaandLyne
 


OK there no way an atom bomb was used in North africa, yet another well documented engagment. I had an uncle who served in NA and fought with pattons II corp, had a nuclear weapon been used word of it would have spread like wildfire through the ranks, and people would have surely talked about it.



If there was a test it may not have been atomic as this contrived neutron
bomb of red mercury may only have made a mushroom cloud.
If no one was around Rommel for miles around there may not have
been any witnesses except the Rommel troops.

Thus only intel from captured troops would know and if no one asked
there would only be volunteered intel if they knew anything at all.

How all this can be even hinted at seems quite hard but why send
Rommel to North Africa and back again with some mysterious reward.
If found usable in sea launched missiles there might be a good reason
for the scuttle of subs at sea at the end of the war.

The regular atomic bombs if developed anywhere in Europe may
have been in Norway and would have been used if needed but
things worked out better for towed sea launch by long distance
electro U subs.



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by TeslaandLyne
 


Dude,
I cant believe you pulled the red mercury card.

IT DOSENT EXIST


And a neutron bomb is still an atom bomb no matter how you look at it.

And what about the tunisians or the algerians or the french or the british or the italians that were all around during the north african campaings.
If an neutron bomb was detonated it would have been seen.

It still would have made one hell of bang and flash, the spies would have seen it, it would have been mentioned in at least one communique, even under a code name it would have been figured out.
There were 100,000 axis troops captured in the north african campaing, and your telling me that not one would have talked about this fantastical new weapon.
Come man



If no one was around Rommel for miles around there may not have
been any witnesses except the Rommel troops.


British scouts had rommels army in contact during the almost the entire campaign.




How all this can be even hinted at seems quite hard but why send
Rommel to North Africa and back again with some mysterious reward.


What are you talking about,

rommel went back to germany to recover from intestinal illnesses that plagued the german army due to thier terrible sanitation practices.
They just crapped wherever they pleased and the flies did the rest.
Whereas the british had a whole field manual dedicated to latrine sanitary practices, and they didnt suffer from the disentary and other diseases spread by poor sanitation that wracked the german army.



If found usable in sea launched missiles there might be a good reason
for the scuttle of subs at sea at the end of the war



Except that the germans didnt have ANY sea launch capability at all so why hide what you dont have.
Besides any atom bomb of the time was far to large to fit into a v1 or v2.
And there was no way you could fit a v2 into any ww2 era sub, never mind the fact that it wsa liquid fueled and ther would have been no way to fuel a missle while at sea.



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 08:53 AM
link   
There is a sea launch history

One can find subs with compressed air silos just as the Trident subs have.
We got the technology from the Nazis.

So not only rockets and jets but sub launched technology as well.
And much more that fails to be spoken about.

Sure intel forces knew something, thats why we do not know about it.



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 09:02 AM
link   
When people are saying the neutron bomb would cause massive amounts of radiation what sort of numbers (rads) are we talking here. Ive heard a Dirty bomb isn't viable for killing people by radiation because of the length of time it would take to make them sick after being contaminated ,so im guessing a neutron bomb would have to be a LOT stronger.

Im not sure im buying the Red Mercury idea, its doubtful if the stuff exists.


[edit on 26-8-2009 by VitalOverdose]



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by VitalOverdose
 


I think of the red mercury oxide with this red mercury references.
Mercury is readily available with heat from the oxide.
The mercury in fluorescent bulbs is a ready source of UV.
UV can knock out alpha and beta particles from the air to just
about any compound of lithium or others to send out a lot
of radiation.
That enough dirty bomb and better than neutron bomb perhaps.

Seeing the uranium and plutonium to know Germany had no
chance of delivery of such a bomb.
I'd say the UV effect was known.
Perhaps light weight enough for an East Coast barrage.

Or just a ploy to bolster an end of the war deal like operation
paperclip. All they needed was something to keep coastal
subs from being attacked while radio communications were
involved with Truman.

Sure the subs and rockets and jets and other secret plans just
did not seem enough to precipitate the seven days in May 1945
work over that sent subs and contents to the bottom of the
sea. Who cares about the men. What was on those subs.
And why did we try and recover them.

Something is missing all right, neutron bomb or not.



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by VitalOverdose
 


red mercury is a modern fairy tale.





a six Gy dose of radiation is lethal and a neutron bomb delivers an 80Gy dose.
And any armored vehicles irradiated will stat lethally radioactive for 24-48 hrs making re-crewing the vehicle difficult.



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 12:36 PM
link   
I would think if the Germans had a nuke it would have been used in Europe, London most likely as the best choice. Remember they totally destroyed Warsaw and Hitler gave the orders to level Paris too, so if they had a nuke it would have been used on a major European city.



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
I would think if the Germans had a nuke it would have been used in Europe, London most likely as the best choice. Remember they totally destroyed Warsaw and Hitler gave the orders to level Paris too, so if they had a nuke it would have been used on a major European city.



People still think Germany had nukes.
But could not deliver them.
America would be the target but no way to get there.

If Norway were the builders as suggested by some theories,
you can see their size was too large for any Nazi plane or rocket.

They needed a close up weapon, perhaps a vapor, non existent
except in the eyes of American intel, weapon to safely go
along the East Coast for negotiations.
Weather real or not, I hold subs had rockets and were off the coast.
And would like to know what went down that we want back.
Suggestions to this matter seem to bring on deniers.

Now an atomic scientists had Einstein write a letter to FDR that
started America's atomic bomb project in 1939.
He thought Germany had a chance and a big one.
Why? And what made him think this.
He saw German bomb plans.
How did he acquire the German bomb plans.
Did Einstein bring the plans with him in 1933?
So by 1939 the Germans had six years already on the project.
Enough to make similar U and Plutonium bombs themselves.
There is speculation U bombs were used on Japan both times.



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by punkinworks09
a six Gy dose of radiation is lethal and a neutron bomb delivers an 80Gy dose.
And any armored vehicles irradiated will stat lethally radioactive for 24-48 hrs making re-crewing the vehicle difficult.


It just occured to me, what effect would neutron weapons have on armoured vehicles that have NBC protection?



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 


the effects would be the same, the crew would die and the vehicle would radioactive for 24-48hr.
Its the steel itself that becomes radioactive.

All the CBN gear is is just air filters and sensors to detect the presence of radioactivity or chemical weapons.



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 02:58 PM
link   
Its could be real because their reports on the bomb



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 03:08 PM
link   
i find it fscinating how so many people rely on historical events for refference and wha tnot. you do realize its hte governments who write their own history books. and its the people that know one knows about that says what really happened after the fact. have you ever even heard of covert hypnosis its not that difficult to convince someone you didnt see something or to alter their memory without the need of violence and torture. the best best is always to accept the possibillity until you know from personal experince and accountable knowledge on something. cause if i had something everyone thought was a myth i would keep it that way. its much easier to create confusion than live a lie.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 10:53 PM
link   
I think you may mean a neutron bomb. Yes these exist.

They can destroy all living matter and leave building and infrastructure standing



posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 07:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero
I would think if the Germans had a nuke it would have been used in Europe, London most likely as the best choice. Remember they totally destroyed Warsaw and Hitler gave the orders to level Paris too, so if they had a nuke it would have been used on a major European city.


Yup. If Hitler had had the bomb he would have used it. He didn't. And can I ask what's all the rubbish elsewhere in the thread about Rommel's men testing a neutron bomb? Total round objects.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join