US would not use nukes in WW3, instead WW3 would lead to a HUGE leap forward in CLEAN Technology, ma

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: mungbean
Notice in the youtube vid of the yemen neutron bomb...

Now you are being silly - that was not a nuclear weapon!

Do you have any idea what a two stage deep penetrating 300 kiloton tactical neutron weapon looks like ? Obviously not.

Nuclear weapons are much different these days than most people imagine. Everybody thinks big Tsar Bomba tye city killing blasts. Not the case anymore mate.

You and I could not even imagine the weapons that have been developed over the past decades !

a reply to: hellobruce

Perhaps you could explain in detail exactly what type of weapon it was then ?? And if you could also explain the scintillation on all cameras and the obvious proton bombardment ? Seems as you are quite the weapons expert


Edit - You did let the first video run for 22 seconds when the explosion happens right ?? It is not the small tiny first explosion you see.

originally posted by: mungbean
And if you could also explain the scintillation on all cameras and the obvious proton bombardment ?

Read the comments on the video, that is explained!

Neutron bombs are nuclear fission bombs with different internal components that allow higher faster radiation but still produce a blast multiple kilotons. a reply to: mungbean

300 kiloton, that is no tactical nuke more like less than 1 kiloton to 10 kilotons. Trinity was 20 kilotons. The W48 was around 70 tons explosive yield. I can name others that are shaped charged nukes and their yields but then I would get myself into trouble. a reply to: mungbean

originally posted by: USSGOBLiN
Neutron bombs are nuclear fission bombs with different internal components that allow higher faster radiation but still produce a blast multiple kilotons. a reply to: mungbean

Neutron bombs are nuclear fission and thermonuclear fusion bombs. They are modified "H-bombs" designed for neutron yield instead of total blast yield. This is done by using much less fission fuel in the thermonuclear (fusion) secondary, and allowing more of the neutrons to escape.

There's still a politically significant amount of radioactive fallout.

One of those hypothetical positron weapons would make far less long-lived radioactive fallout than any neutron bomb.

On the other hand, it would be much smaller in yield, and not really good at wrecking things as opposed to sterilizing things.

Actually they would use "Rods from God".

Why go atomic when a well placed tungsten rod could deliver a 1 to 5 kiloton explosion with no radiation. Not to mention that one explosion in a war zone may not be all that traceable back to the US.

In fact it's possible that the US already used a couple of them. Link.

neutron bombs - enhanced NUKES, both cleaner and deadlier EWR/WMDs

originally posted by: ntech
Actually they would use "Rods from God".

Why go atomic when a well placed tungsten rod could deliver a 1 to 5 kiloton explosion with no radiation.

A rod can't do that. Not much better or even worse than conventional bunker busters.

This is by far the silliest weapon US is going to create. It would either end up biological or killing every life on the planet. It is down right impossible to have a weapon like this. How would you know if the bomb wouldn't kill all the animals?

Forget the Humans, what about squirrels, zoo animals, pets, etc.

Just imagine a city full of no life at all even animals disappearances just because 1 bomb. Tree are not freaking steel or building, the are biological life which is called plants.

Real US weapons:
1. Black Hole Machine
2. Remote-Split-Atom Machine
3. "MindEraser"
4. UFO's
5. Rod/jet from space hitting Earth at Mach 7-9
6. Lasers
7. Near-Complete Invisibility
9. RFID landmines
10. Drones
11. Mass-Area-Paralysis
12. [slot reserved for Time Machine]

Our goal is people to accept the word Earthling.

The plan isn't to use any of it.