It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


UK to be "more open" about nuclear warhead levels

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 26 2010 @ 12:28 PM
The government has said it will be "more open" about the UK's nuclear weapons capability after announcing it will retain a maximum of 225 warheads.

The new coalition government has also said it will review the long-standing policy dictacting when the UK would be prepared to use nuclear weapons to make sure it is still up to date and realistic.


At the moment, the UK would only contemplate such a drastic move in self-defence - including the defence of Nato allies - and only in extreme circumstances.

I think it good the govt is being more open, nukes are a serious matter and i think we have a right to know

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 02:11 AM
Perhaps....but they have not disclosed how many neutron bombs they have?

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 07:44 AM
None hopefully regarding Neutron bombs. A weapon designed to irradiate an area rather than detroy it is a bad thing.

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 08:27 AM

Originally posted by tronied None hopefully regarding Neutron bombs. A weapon designed to irradiate an area rather than detroy it is a bad thing.

I don't see your logic mate.

If you detonate a nuclear device of any kind, it will not only destroy or damage but will also irradiate the surrounding terrain for miles out of Ground Zero.

An air burst will deliver more radiation than a surface or ground burst.

An exo-atmospheric (space) detonation will wipe out mass communications over entire continents, because of radiation.

A subterranian detonation will produce a massive earthquake-like shockwave but next to radiation.

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 09:37 AM
Yeah, there will always be some radiation from nuclear devices such as these, but from what I have read a neutron bomb sole purpose was just to irradiate an area with little emphasis on the destructive force. Surely the "better" kinds of bombs are those which are relatively clean i.e. limit radioactive fallout but put more effort into destruction (not that its a good thing). An example of this is the russian made bomb (Tsar Bomba):

To limit fallout, the third stage and possibly the second stage had a lead tamper instead of a uranium-238 fusion tamper (which greatly amplifies the reaction by fissioning uranium atoms with fast neutrons from fusion reaction). This eliminated fast fission by the fusion-stage neutrons, so that approximately 97% of the total energy resulted from fusion alone (as such, it was one of the "cleanest" nuclear bombs ever created, generating a very low amount of fallout relative to its yield)

Wikipedia Link

Making a bomb to create radiation which not only causing horrific deaths in the short term, but the long term as well should and hopefully be banned.

posted on May, 28 2010 @ 02:03 PM
reply to post by tronied[/url]

The Neutron device was designed at the height of the Cold War, when Europe was shaking in terror at the mere mention of the Russian super Bogey Man.

It was I suppose, a battlefield weapon, intended to be used against the massed armoured formations of the Warsaw Pact, should they ever decide to come waltzing through the Fulda Gap.

From what I remember during my Instructors course at DNBCC, it was suggested that a Neutron Device was the ideal weapon because it killed quickly and it was alleged that cities could be occupied within days of a unit detonation.

The 'yield' from a neutron warhead would be just high enough to ensure fatalities in the target area and around Ground Zero, but nowhere else.

Hard to get your head around I know, but just think of an EMP device writ large.


log in