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.

 

The Bomb Nobody Talks About..The Politically Incorrect Neutron Bomb

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 11:11 AM
link   
Dec., 1, 2010


Samuel T. Cohen, the physicist who invented the small tactical nuclear weapon known as the neutron bomb, a controversial device designed to kill enemy troops with subatomic particles but leave battlefields and cities relatively intact, died on Sunday at his home in Los Angeles. He was 89.

www.nytimes.com...


We've got 'em.

Lots of nations have 'em.

*snip*

The neutron bomb is cleaner than the atomic warhead, lower range of radiation yield,l less property damage over a wide scale and less collateral damage.

During the Cold War, the neutron bomb kept Soviet tanks from advancing onto Allied controlled German terriroty. The neutron bomb could kill a tank crew, leaving that Soviet tank to run into a ditch.

One of Ronald Reagan's very secretive 'Black Box' military developments was further research into the neutron bomb capabilities.

Sam Cohen was part of the Manhattan Project creating the first atomic bomb. He didn't receive the publicity of other scientists as he quietly developed the W70 warhead.

We just never hear much about the neutron bomb, today.

Get to know Sam Cohen.....RIP.



Interview With Sam Cohen....


LOS ANGELES - For most of Sam Cohen's life, he has struggled against politicians who, in his opinion, have sacrificed good sense when it comes to the nation's defenses. Cohen is the physicist who invented the neutron bomb, the one that kills people but leaves things like tanks and buildings intact. Plans to deploy his creations in Europe during the '70s and '80s awakened the "peace movement" across that continent, stopping its deployment


www.manuelsweb.com...

 

Mod Note: Terms & Conditions of Use – Please Review This Link.
Mod Edit: External Source Tags Instructions – Please Review This Link.
edit on 13-2-2012 by GAOTU789 because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 11:22 AM
link   
I remember you posting another thread about cluster bombs being awesome. Bomb Of Fear

I'm getting the distinct impression that if America unveiled the technology to reduce planet Earth to ashes, you'd throw a party to celebrate.

Does anything NON-violent please you?

Seriously...if we didn't have any bombs, no one would have to worry. Let's get rid of the bloody things, and just hold hands and sing for once in our ingloriously destructive lives! I know, unrealistic...but don't you just get tired of the dying and blowing # up?
edit on CMondayam515122f22America/Chicago13 by Starchild23 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by tonycliffs
The neutron bomb, otherwise known as the W70 warhead. The bomb nobody wants to talk about because it makes the heads of liberals explode. Which is fine with me. Liberals remain in packs of other liberals. Exploding liberal heads don't bother me.


Wow...how ignorant, primitive and full of hate can you get?

I guess the people in charge really did know how to hold us down. Separate the people(Left vs. Right) and they'll be too passionate and distracted to see the truth.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Starchild23
I remember you posting another thread about cluster bombs being awesome. Bomb Of Fear

I'm getting the distinct impression that if America unveiled the technology to reduce planet Earth to ashes, you'd throw a party to celebrate.

Does anything NON-violent please you?

Seriously...if we didn't have any bombs, no one would have to worry. Let's get rid of the bloody things, and just hold hands and sing for once in our ingloriously destructive lives! I know, unrealistic...but don't you just get tired of the dying and blowing # up?
edit on CMondayam515122f22America/Chicago13 by Starchild23 because: (no reason given)


Knowing that my side has the best weapons makes me happy as well. I never want to use them but if another country declares war on us I'm happy to know that we have these weapons to take care of the enemy.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fitch303

Originally posted by Starchild23
I remember you posting another thread about cluster bombs being awesome. Bomb Of Fear

I'm getting the distinct impression that if America unveiled the technology to reduce planet Earth to ashes, you'd throw a party to celebrate.

Does anything NON-violent please you?

Seriously...if we didn't have any bombs, no one would have to worry. Let's get rid of the bloody things, and just hold hands and sing for once in our ingloriously destructive lives! I know, unrealistic...but don't you just get tired of the dying and blowing # up?
edit on CMondayam515122f22America/Chicago13 by Starchild23 because: (no reason given)


Knowing that my side has the best weapons makes me happy as well. I never want to use them but if another country declares war on us I'm happy to know that we have these weapons to take care of the enemy.


You and me, both.

Liberals have the Constitutional Right to leave themselves unarmed and unprotected.

That does NOT mean liberals have the Constitutional Right to enforce us to be unarmed and unprotected.

And why is it that when a liberal is attacked, the first thing they do is call for us to come save them?



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 11:35 AM
link   
And for that he received the Nobel prize.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 11:35 AM
link   
Neutron bombs, Atomic bombs, Hydrogen bombs etc are out dated.
They are just for show, rather a shock and awe effect. They are used to instill fear in the masses.

The weapons we have to fear now is SCALAR WEAPONS: Read it and weep



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 11:37 AM
link   
Samuel T Choen, Red Mercury

Yes and even in the wikileaks documents Red Mercury is mentioned as a serious item, as well as an army manual that specified how the bomb was to be used in war...

Above is a thread I made when the wikileaks documents came out.

Your link was in my thread as well.
edit on 13-2-2012 by benrl because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by tonycliffs

Originally posted by Fitch303

Originally posted by Starchild23
I remember you posting another thread about cluster bombs being awesome. Bomb Of Fear

I'm getting the distinct impression that if America unveiled the technology to reduce planet Earth to ashes, you'd throw a party to celebrate.

Does anything NON-violent please you?

Seriously...if we didn't have any bombs, no one would have to worry. Let's get rid of the bloody things, and just hold hands and sing for once in our ingloriously destructive lives! I know, unrealistic...but don't you just get tired of the dying and blowing # up?
edit on CMondayam515122f22America/Chicago13 by Starchild23 because: (no reason given)


Knowing that my side has the best weapons makes me happy as well. I never want to use them but if another country declares war on us I'm happy to know that we have these weapons to take care of the enemy.


You and me, both.

Liberals have the Constitutional Right to leave themselves unarmed and unprotected.

That does NOT mean liberals have the Constitutional Right to enforce us to be unarmed and unprotected.

And why is it that when a liberal is attacked, the first thing they do is call for us to come save them?


The Neutron bomb doesn't have anything to do with liberals or republicans. It doesn't have anything to do with the 2nd amendment of the constitution either. It was developed by the USA. It was put to use the anti-ballistic missile systems as well.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fitch303

Originally posted by Starchild23
I remember you posting another thread about cluster bombs being awesome. Bomb Of Fear

I'm getting the distinct impression that if America unveiled the technology to reduce planet Earth to ashes, you'd throw a party to celebrate.

Does anything NON-violent please you?

Seriously...if we didn't have any bombs, no one would have to worry. Let's get rid of the bloody things, and just hold hands and sing for once in our ingloriously destructive lives! I know, unrealistic...but don't you just get tired of the dying and blowing # up?
edit on CMondayam515122f22America/Chicago13 by Starchild23 because: (no reason given)


Knowing that my side has the best weapons makes me happy as well. I never want to use them but if another country declares war on us I'm happy to know that we have these weapons to take care of the enemy.


There is a difference between lack of fear and enjoyment of violence. A big difference...

One man lacks fear. He can stare his enemy in the eye without backing down. Enemy goes away, discouraged.

Another man looks his enemy in the eye and shoots the enemy without saying a word, then laughs. All enemies bow to him, and he becomes a tyrant.

That's the difference.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by tonycliffs
 


An interesting technology, but they're not in use. That last one in our arsenal was dismantled in 2011 according to the National Nuclear Security Administration. See their 2011 fiscal year recap, paragraph 3: www.nnsa.energy.gov...

The only other nations known to have built them were France and China, and there's no indication that they still have them in their arsenals. They're complicated and difficult to build, so only wealthy, technologically advanced militaries could ever produce them. Getting rid of them was part of international nuclear disarmarment treaties after the Cold War. If you believe everyone is being honest, there are no neutron bombs in anyone's arsenals.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 11:46 AM
link   
Alright, people. Listen.

The neutron bomb has as much to do with politics as my gym shorts had to do with your breakfast this morning. There may be a few correlations, but nothing big.

The neutron bomb was designed for the specific purpose of destroying life while not causing damage to physical structures. Essentially, we can kill and not owe any money to liable structures.

There was no mercy involved in the creation of such a weapon. We were not creating a peaceful solution, nor a permanent one. It was like a mass-effect bullet.

Killing is what we live for, apparently.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by tonycliffs
 


The neutron bomb of your OP was but one version of the W70 warhead. It was know as the W70-3, they were all retired in the early 1990's.

That fact blows your thread to smithereens.

Unlike the neutron bomb, which would only leave your thread petit glo-in-the-dark.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 12:05 PM
link   
Why, you might ask, would the US discontinue a weapon of such sheer awesomeness? Perhaps because fanatic America-hating liberals conspired to disarm us so we could be taken over by the Commies? You know, the ones that we were told would be fighting us in our streets if we didn't go and kick their collective behind in Vietnam? Nope. The intrinsic design of 'enhanced radiation' weapons are their own downfall. They are extremely costly and time intensive to maintain. Staged deployment requires nearly constant rotation and upkeep. And the urban legend 'kills people and leaves infrastructure intact' isn't exactly true. Just kills more people.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Starchild23
Alright, people. Listen.

The neutron bomb has as much to do with politics as my gym shorts had to do with your breakfast this morning. There may be a few correlations, but nothing big.

The neutron bomb was designed for the specific purpose of destroying life while not causing damage to physical structures. Essentially, we can kill and not owe any money to liable structures.

There was no mercy involved in the creation of such a weapon. We were not creating a peaceful solution, nor a permanent one. It was like a mass-effect bullet.

Killing is what we live for, apparently.


Is there any argument at all to be made that destroying things in addition to lives is preferable? The motivation is practical; as cold as it may sound, it's a good idea. No one benefits from the property damage, and the people die either way... an uncomfortable matter of fact.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by OnceReturned

Originally posted by Starchild23
Alright, people. Listen.

The neutron bomb has as much to do with politics as my gym shorts had to do with your breakfast this morning. There may be a few correlations, but nothing big.

The neutron bomb was designed for the specific purpose of destroying life while not causing damage to physical structures. Essentially, we can kill and not owe any money to liable structures.

There was no mercy involved in the creation of such a weapon. We were not creating a peaceful solution, nor a permanent one. It was like a mass-effect bullet.

Killing is what we live for, apparently.


Is there any argument at all to be made that destroying things in addition to lives is preferable? The motivation is practical; as cold as it may sound, it's a good idea. No one benefits from the property damage, and the people die either way... an uncomfortable matter of fact.


So since we can't, for some inexplicable reason, keep from killing each other off, we must learn to save the buildings at least?

Such sound logic.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Starchild23
So since we can't, for some inexplicable reason, keep from killing each other off, we must learn to save the buildings at least?


Um, there is a reason we can not keep from killing ourselves. It is called life! And plucking at a nirvanna fallacy will not change that. Just because we "shouldn't" hurt each other, doesn't mean we won't. This is not a perfect world (nirvanna) and I am pretty darn sure it never will be.

SO With that said, I love weapons that are made with the intention of not being used. You do realize what a "cold war" is right? Could I not argue then, that these bombs were created with the intention of scaring people into not fighting?

Or is scaring folks into prosperity not as good as them doing it on their own? I mean if the US touting a bomb around causes folks to be nicer, isn't that justification? No? Then how come a god can do it? (Hell sounds worse than a little ol' bomb)


Originally posted by Starchild23
Such sound logic.


My post was, it was not filled with fallacies and "feel good" comments. This is the real world, and the real world has bombs. I am glad that there are big enough bombs to keep people from being worse. Well at least the threat of the bomb keeps their behavior in check, right comrade?
edit on 2/13/2012 by adigregorio because: Heh, been awhile didn't think I could get off without a small "bbcode" edit...



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Starchild23
There was no mercy involved in the creation of such a weapon.


That's debatable considering it is designed specifically as a low yield tactical weapon, less likely to cause collateral damage and in the event of being dropped on anything but a battlefield, infrastructure remains intact leaving far less clean-up after its detonation.

The power of an atom bomb with a fraction of the aftermath.

Yes, it's a weapon; but as an alternative to one of if not the worst of weapons.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 02:12 PM
link   
I know that the MAD kind of postponed the nuclear war but in my opinion it only postponed it. A weapon built will be used. If not now - it will be used later. If we cannot be a non-violent civilization, a weapon that does not destroy buildings does not make sense in the end. We will just leave more intact buildings for any aliens that wish to settle our globe


And I also think that praising a war device is a sign of mental illness. Something that will cost us all everything in the end. Maybe nature will start again after we've reduced ourselves to ashes.

reply to post by adigregorio
 


OT: Nirvana is not a [type of a ] world but a state, a mental state. Using that word in terms of "ideal world" does not make sense.

edit on 2012/2/13 by krzyspmac because: spelling, spelling




posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by krzyspmac
 


Quite the proper use:


The nirvana fallacy is the logical error of comparing actual things with unrealistic, idealized alternatives. It can also refer to the tendency to assume that there is a perfect solution to a particular problem. A closely related concept is the perfect solution fallacy.

en.wikipedia.org...

We live in the real world (bombs), the magical world of "no bombs" is what we are comparing it to. And using that world to say this one is wrong, not a proper argument.




top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join