6 ms·

Father of Neutron Bomb, “The Most Moral Weapon,” Dies

27 points by Randy00 16y ago

DevX101 16y ago
There's something oddly perverse about the concept of a neutron bomb. You drop a bomb on a city, to kill large amounts of people, but leave all the structures intact for conquering. If I had a magic wand, I'd have all countries have military technology no more advanced than the Romans. I understand that there are situations that call for war. But when that time comes, the people should KNOW they are at war, and have to make the sacrifices in lives to engage in that war. The neutron bomb makes it a bit too attractive to engage in and win a war from afar.
- jordan0day 16y ago
  I think this is a misconception. AFAIK, the neutron bombs that were built (by the USA, at least), still had yields similar to that of the Hiroshima bomb, or 10-20 kilotons. As the article points out, Cohen's idea was to have a smaller explosive yield, but we never accomplished that. So in reality, the infrastructure still would have been significantly damaged. I think Cohen may have had the right idea in mind, though. Lots of people seem to think the idea of the neutron bomb is "we can kill all of them and then move into their houses!", but what was the last war the USA fought with the serious goal of attaining land? The Spanish-American war? I think Cohen honestly believed that in a war it would be better to just quickly kill all the people who would inevitably die anyway, hopefully quickly ending the war. Then the survivors could get on with rebuilding, and if their infrastructure required less rebuilding, well, even better. Obviously not waging a nuclear war at all was the best option, but who in the 1960's really thought we'd make it to 2010 without a nuclear exchange? One thing Cohen probably didn't consider in his "moral weapon" argument, although in hindsight it's another bonus, is that a nuclear war waged through low-yield weapons would cause less dust to be kicked up and smaller fires, ultimately preventing the "nuclear winter" that others predict from a full-scale nuclear war. So if the USA and USSR blew themselves up, nations elsewhere (esp. southern hemisphere nations) would experience significantly less environmental damage.
  - mcritz 16y ago
    Neutron weapons are deployed at higher altitudes and explode nearly vertically to the ground. This helps minimize the physical shockwave damage to the ground and maximize exposure to the Gamma-ray radiation. Contrasting this, some weapons are intended to be detonated at an angle & closer to ground level. These combine to increase the physical effects of the explosive shockwave: overturning armored vehicles, weakening defensive structures, destroying rail & roadways, and knocking down cover.
    - icegreentea 16y ago
      ...I don't understand this concept of 'angle'. We don't really have an effective way of shaping a nuclear explosion do we? I mean, my understanding is that the blast effect of a nuke is a result of the xrays/gamma rays slamming into the air, and that nukes produce a nearly burst of rays in all directions. If you mean that the resulting shockwave will be closer to vertical when it reaches given distance from ground zero, then that's just a function of geometry/height, not of any 'angle' during the detonation.
      - jasonkester 16y ago
        Actually, it seems like you do understand what he was talking about. You just haven't seen references to Nuclear Shaped Charges before. Back in the day, lots of smart guys were working on ways to make nuclear explosions do interesting things. One of these things was to shape the explosion into something useful. Check out how they were doing it for project Orion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsi... So yeah, that's what he meant.
      - mcritz 16y ago
        The angle of attack as related to the surface of the Earth. E.g. a perpendicular angle of attack means the weapon approaches detonation range from directly above. Sorry for the confusion.
    - jordan0day 16y ago
- kenver 16y ago
  Whenever I read about neutron bombs they always talk about how they're designed to kill tank crews/armored soldiers etc, but as you say the potential is there to kill everyone in a city with little infrastructure damage. From the sounds of it they must be expensive and difficult to maintain though due to the half life of tritium (12 years) so hopefully there aren't many around. I don't see how they can ever be called a moral weapon, if for this reason alone (wikipedia): One significant drawback of the weapon is that not all targeted troops will die or be incapacitated immediately. After a brief bout of nausea, many of those hit with about 5–50 Sv of radiation will experience a temporary recovery (the latent or "walking ghost phase") lasting days to weeks.
  - pmjordan 16y ago
    I wonder how they know this? Do they just assume that neutron radiation will cause the same radiation sickness as other types of radiation? Extrapolate from animal testing? Or have there been tests with humans? My understanding was that the high-energy neutrons interacted with the hydrogen nuclei (singular protons) in the body, due to the extremely similar mass; conversely, ionising radiation, well, ionises molecules, that is to say, interacts with the electrons.
    - DougWebb 16y ago
      Explosive weapons aren't the only sources of neutrons. I imagine animals have been exposed in labs, and probably humans have been accidentally exposed too.
      - varjag 16y ago
        Also, there were plenty of actual nuclear bombing victims to draw many kinds of statistics.
    - Symmetry 16y ago
      From accidents in the early days of nuclear research and extrapolation. An example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon_core http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon_core
- CapitalistCartr 16y ago
  Having the military technology of the Romans didn't stop people from having as many wars as they could. Seeing suffering hasn't stopped people from having wars. Enthusiastically. The only technology that has put the brakes on men's passion for warring is nuclear weapons. This has been the most peaceful period in history.
  - DannoHung 16y ago
    You don't think that has anything to do with armament imbalance? Put all the guns or all the swords or all the nuclear bombs in the hands of one set of people and sure you'll have peace from the de-armed populace... but you'd better do what the guy with the gun says to do.
  - hasenj 16y ago
    > This has been the most peaceful period in history. Not really. Not for the middle east anyway. Although I see your point about having nuclear weapons resulting in less wars. The USA and USSR never actually got in a direct war. OTOH, if just one reckless leader decides to use nukes, just for once, it will probably start an endless nuclear war. It's a double edged sword. Wonder what would happen if every country in the middle east had them, or say, major countries (Turkey, and some Arab country).
    - salemh 16y ago
      No major powers have gone to war however. Stalemates of nuclear war and the lack of conventional warfare between capitalistic countries equates to this weird period in history that does not involve actual military expansion. Economic expansion is enough :D http://www.dancarlin.com/disp.php/hharchive/Show-33---(BLITZ)-Old-School-Toughness/%20history-lifecycles-empire http://www.dancarlin.com/disp.php/hharchive/Show-33---(BLITZ... An interesting look at "Belgium should not be a country" meaning, pre-1950's, Belgium would be snapped up by an expanding imperialistic country. http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/demowar.htm http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/demowar.htm Lists of Democracies going to war..though I would differentiate this between "capitalistic" countries and war. Points and counter-points: http://bnarchives.yorku.ca/205/01/20060806nb_cheap_wars_tikkun_web.htm http://bnarchives.yorku.ca/205/01/20060806nb_cheap_wars_tikk...
- lukeschlather 16y ago
  Why, then, has no one ever used a neutron bomb in war? From an evidence-based standpoint, guns, bows and the like make it far more attractive. I'd also point out that civilization with Roman-era technology is impossible without slavery on a massive scale, slavery that must be fueled by war.
  - ertyjhgvfdc 16y ago
    Because nobody with the technology has fought a large tank force in a region where they didn't want to destroy the surrounding country.
- tomjen3 16y ago
  That won't do you much good. The asyrians didn't need nuclear weapons to destroy Babylon. And they could hardly have done a better job with them.
- InclinedPlane 16y ago
  You've got it backwards. Industrialization buts incredible power in the hands of the individual, see the damage that individual terrorists and crazies are capable of. And there's no way to take away that dangerous capability and keep an industrialized, mechanized economy and society intact. Anyone with the necessary knowledge and intent and access to home depot can build modern weapons (guns, bombs, and worse things). But the plus side is significant. An agrarian population is a population that can be cowed by force. History is clear on this. When the bulk of the population are tied to farms they can be easily dominated by any militant group with weapons and a will to subjugate. Keep in mind, the horrific practices of, say, the Nazis or the Fascists or the Stalinists or the Maoists were de rigueur in ancient times. This is not something I want to return to, no matter how imperfect modern times are.
anigbrowl 16y ago
WSJ obit gives the impression that he really, really wanted to see it used. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703994904575647123407618324.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870399490457564...
kwantam 16y ago
Excellent Khrushchev quote in the article: > Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev called the neutron bomb the > ultimate capitalist weapon, built “to kill a man in such a way that his > suit will not be stained with blood, in order to appropriate the suit.” Khrushchev is an extremely interesting figure in Soviet history; the Wikipedia article on him makes for some great reading. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikita_Khrushchev http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikita_Khrushchev
- hugh3 16y ago
  It seems that Krushchev didn't actually understand what capitalism actually is, though.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
presidentender 16y ago
The most moral weapon is a microphone or a keyboard. The neutron bomb is perhaps the most attractive weapon, but I don't see what makes it moral.
commieneko 16y ago
For some entertaining reading, check out his views on Red Mercury.
igrekel 16y ago
I understand how it can be used against an army but a lot of bombing is meant to impair infrastructure and production capacity. Such a weapon doesn't address the real concern of modern warfare: civilian populations are more and more impacted then they used to be.
- hugh3 16y ago
  Than they used to be when? Compared to Napoleonic-era wars, probably. But if you go back to the ancients, you'll find you're sparing the women and children in the enemy cities only so you can sell them as slaves after you've defeated the men in battle.
  - igrekel 16y ago
    Ok my bad, I was thinking in relatively recent western history.
ahi 16y ago
Years ago I took a course on the ethics of war and we had a couple of readings on the neutron bomb. They seemed to be a good idea only to the "better dead than red" crowd. While less destructive than conventional nuclear weapons, neutron bombs would have been far more likely to have been used. My ethical equation goes something like this: ethical stupidity = (damage) x (probability of usage) regular nukes: (ludicrous damage) x (even in the event of a tank invasion of Europe only an idiot would think this was a good idea) neutron: (a little less ludicrous damage) x (somebody will do it) The reason the "better dead than red" crowd thought they were a great idea was because they thought using regular nukes was a fine idea too.
- ertyjhgvfdc 16y ago
  If you want to kill everyone in a city without damaging the buildings you use nerve gas. The point of the neutron bomb - which actually would do quite a lot of damage to a city (it's still a Hiroshima size nuke) - is to kill tanks. Tanks are inherently rather bang poof,so to destroy an army of 10,000s Russian tanks spread across France and Germany you have to drop rather a lot of large thermonuclear weapons - which makes rather a mess - because anybody in a tank a couple of miles from the blast of a small nuke isn't going to care. The problem with reducing your allies' country to a radioactive sheet of glass is that it's rather hard to sell politically, which means they are likely to either surrender or nuke you in retaliation or - in the case of France - both. The idea of the neutron bomb was that you could use a relatively small nuke and kill tank crews 10miles away while making considerably less mess, thus persuading the Russians you might do it, thus suggesting to them that a quick Blitzkreig attack wouldn't go succeed.
  - varjag 16y ago
    The whole idea, of course, was based on assumption that Soviets would use only conventional weapons in retaliation to neutron bomb usage. After all neutron bomb is moral, right? But somehow it didn't ring with Russians, who made it clear they'll follow up with nuclear response. That kind of renders all advantages of the weapon useless.
    - 16y ago
alan-crowe 16y ago
When neutrons scatter off protons the energy often ends up shared, since the masses are about equal. Pretty soon the neutron becomes thermal, pottering about for a bit, until its half life of only 10 minutes leads to decay. So materials rich in protons, such as wet soil, provide useful shielding. When neutrons scatter off iron they bounce. It is a random walk, but they keep up their speed. Tank armour is mostly iron. It isn't much good against neutrons, even though it is great against the blast and heat of ordinary nuclear weapons. The obvious tactic is to have your infantry cower in muddy trenches while your neutron bombs inflict disproportionate casualties on invading enemy tanks. That is where neutron bombs fitted into the cold war.

27 points by Randy00 16y ago

There's something oddly perverse about the concept of a neutron bomb. You drop a bomb on a city, to kill large amounts of people, but leave all the structures intact for conquering. If I had a magic wand, I'd have all countries have military technology no more advanced than the Romans. I understand that there are situations that call for war. But when that time comes, the people should KNOW they are at war, and have to make the sacrifices in lives to engage in that war. The neutron bomb makes it a bit too attractive to engage in and win a war from afar.

jordan0day 16y ago
I think this is a misconception. AFAIK, the neutron bombs that were built (by the USA, at least), still had yields similar to that of the Hiroshima bomb, or 10-20 kilotons. As the article points out, Cohen's idea was to have a smaller explosive yield, but we never accomplished that. So in reality, the infrastructure still would have been significantly damaged. I think Cohen may have had the right idea in mind, though. Lots of people seem to think the idea of the neutron bomb is "we can kill all of them and then move into their houses!", but what was the last war the USA fought with the serious goal of attaining land? The Spanish-American war? I think Cohen honestly believed that in a war it would be better to just quickly kill all the people who would inevitably die anyway, hopefully quickly ending the war. Then the survivors could get on with rebuilding, and if their infrastructure required less rebuilding, well, even better. Obviously not waging a nuclear war at all was the best option, but who in the 1960's really thought we'd make it to 2010 without a nuclear exchange? One thing Cohen probably didn't consider in his "moral weapon" argument, although in hindsight it's another bonus, is that a nuclear war waged through low-yield weapons would cause less dust to be kicked up and smaller fires, ultimately preventing the "nuclear winter" that others predict from a full-scale nuclear war. So if the USA and USSR blew themselves up, nations elsewhere (esp. southern hemisphere nations) would experience significantly less environmental damage.
- mcritz 16y ago
  Neutron weapons are deployed at higher altitudes and explode nearly vertically to the ground. This helps minimize the physical shockwave damage to the ground and maximize exposure to the Gamma-ray radiation. Contrasting this, some weapons are intended to be detonated at an angle & closer to ground level. These combine to increase the physical effects of the explosive shockwave: overturning armored vehicles, weakening defensive structures, destroying rail & roadways, and knocking down cover.
  - icegreentea 16y ago
    ...I don't understand this concept of 'angle'. We don't really have an effective way of shaping a nuclear explosion do we? I mean, my understanding is that the blast effect of a nuke is a result of the xrays/gamma rays slamming into the air, and that nukes produce a nearly burst of rays in all directions. If you mean that the resulting shockwave will be closer to vertical when it reaches given distance from ground zero, then that's just a function of geometry/height, not of any 'angle' during the detonation.
    - jasonkester 16y ago
      Actually, it seems like you do understand what he was talking about. You just haven't seen references to Nuclear Shaped Charges before. Back in the day, lots of smart guys were working on ways to make nuclear explosions do interesting things. One of these things was to shape the explosion into something useful. Check out how they were doing it for project Orion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsi... So yeah, that's what he meant.
    - mcritz 16y ago
      The angle of attack as related to the surface of the Earth. E.g. a perpendicular angle of attack means the weapon approaches detonation range from directly above. Sorry for the confusion.
  - jordan0day 16y ago
kenver 16y ago
Whenever I read about neutron bombs they always talk about how they're designed to kill tank crews/armored soldiers etc, but as you say the potential is there to kill everyone in a city with little infrastructure damage. From the sounds of it they must be expensive and difficult to maintain though due to the half life of tritium (12 years) so hopefully there aren't many around. I don't see how they can ever be called a moral weapon, if for this reason alone (wikipedia): One significant drawback of the weapon is that not all targeted troops will die or be incapacitated immediately. After a brief bout of nausea, many of those hit with about 5–50 Sv of radiation will experience a temporary recovery (the latent or "walking ghost phase") lasting days to weeks.
- pmjordan 16y ago
  I wonder how they know this? Do they just assume that neutron radiation will cause the same radiation sickness as other types of radiation? Extrapolate from animal testing? Or have there been tests with humans? My understanding was that the high-energy neutrons interacted with the hydrogen nuclei (singular protons) in the body, due to the extremely similar mass; conversely, ionising radiation, well, ionises molecules, that is to say, interacts with the electrons.
  - DougWebb 16y ago
    Explosive weapons aren't the only sources of neutrons. I imagine animals have been exposed in labs, and probably humans have been accidentally exposed too.
    - varjag 16y ago
      Also, there were plenty of actual nuclear bombing victims to draw many kinds of statistics.
  - Symmetry 16y ago
    From accidents in the early days of nuclear research and extrapolation. An example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon_core http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon_core
CapitalistCartr 16y ago
Having the military technology of the Romans didn't stop people from having as many wars as they could. Seeing suffering hasn't stopped people from having wars. Enthusiastically. The only technology that has put the brakes on men's passion for warring is nuclear weapons. This has been the most peaceful period in history.
- DannoHung 16y ago
  You don't think that has anything to do with armament imbalance? Put all the guns or all the swords or all the nuclear bombs in the hands of one set of people and sure you'll have peace from the de-armed populace... but you'd better do what the guy with the gun says to do.
- hasenj 16y ago
  > This has been the most peaceful period in history. Not really. Not for the middle east anyway. Although I see your point about having nuclear weapons resulting in less wars. The USA and USSR never actually got in a direct war. OTOH, if just one reckless leader decides to use nukes, just for once, it will probably start an endless nuclear war. It's a double edged sword. Wonder what would happen if every country in the middle east had them, or say, major countries (Turkey, and some Arab country).
  - salemh 16y ago
    No major powers have gone to war however. Stalemates of nuclear war and the lack of conventional warfare between capitalistic countries equates to this weird period in history that does not involve actual military expansion. Economic expansion is enough :D http://www.dancarlin.com/disp.php/hharchive/Show-33---(BLITZ)-Old-School-Toughness/%20history-lifecycles-empire http://www.dancarlin.com/disp.php/hharchive/Show-33---(BLITZ... An interesting look at "Belgium should not be a country" meaning, pre-1950's, Belgium would be snapped up by an expanding imperialistic country. http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/demowar.htm http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/demowar.htm Lists of Democracies going to war..though I would differentiate this between "capitalistic" countries and war. Points and counter-points: http://bnarchives.yorku.ca/205/01/20060806nb_cheap_wars_tikkun_web.htm http://bnarchives.yorku.ca/205/01/20060806nb_cheap_wars_tikk...
lukeschlather 16y ago
Why, then, has no one ever used a neutron bomb in war? From an evidence-based standpoint, guns, bows and the like make it far more attractive. I'd also point out that civilization with Roman-era technology is impossible without slavery on a massive scale, slavery that must be fueled by war.
- ertyjhgvfdc 16y ago
  Because nobody with the technology has fought a large tank force in a region where they didn't want to destroy the surrounding country.
tomjen3 16y ago
That won't do you much good. The asyrians didn't need nuclear weapons to destroy Babylon. And they could hardly have done a better job with them.
InclinedPlane 16y ago
You've got it backwards. Industrialization buts incredible power in the hands of the individual, see the damage that individual terrorists and crazies are capable of. And there's no way to take away that dangerous capability and keep an industrialized, mechanized economy and society intact. Anyone with the necessary knowledge and intent and access to home depot can build modern weapons (guns, bombs, and worse things). But the plus side is significant. An agrarian population is a population that can be cowed by force. History is clear on this. When the bulk of the population are tied to farms they can be easily dominated by any militant group with weapons and a will to subjugate. Keep in mind, the horrific practices of, say, the Nazis or the Fascists or the Stalinists or the Maoists were de rigueur in ancient times. This is not something I want to return to, no matter how imperfect modern times are.

anigbrowl 16y ago

WSJ obit gives the impression that he really, really wanted to see it used. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703994904575647123407618324.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870399490457564...

kwantam 16y ago

Excellent Khrushchev quote in the article: > Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev called the neutron bomb the > ultimate capitalist weapon, built “to kill a man in such a way that his > suit will not be stained with blood, in order to appropriate the suit.” Khrushchev is an extremely interesting figure in Soviet history; the Wikipedia article on him makes for some great reading. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikita_Khrushchev http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikita_Khrushchev

hugh3 16y ago
It seems that Krushchev didn't actually understand what capitalism actually is, though.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

presidentender 16y ago

The most moral weapon is a microphone or a keyboard. The neutron bomb is perhaps the most attractive weapon, but I don't see what makes it moral.

commieneko 16y ago

For some entertaining reading, check out his views on Red Mercury.

igrekel 16y ago

I understand how it can be used against an army but a lot of bombing is meant to impair infrastructure and production capacity. Such a weapon doesn't address the real concern of modern warfare: civilian populations are more and more impacted then they used to be.

hugh3 16y ago
Than they used to be when? Compared to Napoleonic-era wars, probably. But if you go back to the ancients, you'll find you're sparing the women and children in the enemy cities only so you can sell them as slaves after you've defeated the men in battle.
- igrekel 16y ago
  Ok my bad, I was thinking in relatively recent western history.

ahi 16y ago

Years ago I took a course on the ethics of war and we had a couple of readings on the neutron bomb. They seemed to be a good idea only to the "better dead than red" crowd. While less destructive than conventional nuclear weapons, neutron bombs would have been far more likely to have been used. My ethical equation goes something like this: ethical stupidity = (damage) x (probability of usage) regular nukes: (ludicrous damage) x (even in the event of a tank invasion of Europe only an idiot would think this was a good idea) neutron: (a little less ludicrous damage) x (somebody will do it) The reason the "better dead than red" crowd thought they were a great idea was because they thought using regular nukes was a fine idea too.

ertyjhgvfdc 16y ago
If you want to kill everyone in a city without damaging the buildings you use nerve gas. The point of the neutron bomb - which actually would do quite a lot of damage to a city (it's still a Hiroshima size nuke) - is to kill tanks. Tanks are inherently rather bang poof,so to destroy an army of 10,000s Russian tanks spread across France and Germany you have to drop rather a lot of large thermonuclear weapons - which makes rather a mess - because anybody in a tank a couple of miles from the blast of a small nuke isn't going to care. The problem with reducing your allies' country to a radioactive sheet of glass is that it's rather hard to sell politically, which means they are likely to either surrender or nuke you in retaliation or - in the case of France - both. The idea of the neutron bomb was that you could use a relatively small nuke and kill tank crews 10miles away while making considerably less mess, thus persuading the Russians you might do it, thus suggesting to them that a quick Blitzkreig attack wouldn't go succeed.
- varjag 16y ago
  The whole idea, of course, was based on assumption that Soviets would use only conventional weapons in retaliation to neutron bomb usage. After all neutron bomb is moral, right? But somehow it didn't ring with Russians, who made it clear they'll follow up with nuclear response. That kind of renders all advantages of the weapon useless.
  - 16y ago

alan-crowe 16y ago

When neutrons scatter off protons the energy often ends up shared, since the masses are about equal. Pretty soon the neutron becomes thermal, pottering about for a bit, until its half life of only 10 minutes leads to decay. So materials rich in protons, such as wet soil, provide useful shielding. When neutrons scatter off iron they bounce. It is a random walk, but they keep up their speed. Tank armour is mostly iron. It isn't much good against neutrons, even though it is great against the blast and heat of ordinary nuclear weapons. The obvious tactic is to have your infantry cower in muddy trenches while your neutron bombs inflict disproportionate casualties on invading enemy tanks. That is where neutron bombs fitted into the cold war.