4 ms·

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-

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
  According to the wikipedia entry: "Although neutron bombs are commonly believed to "leave the infrastructure intact", current designs have explosive yields in the kiloton range,[13] the detonation of which would cause heavy destruction through blast and heat effects." I agree the intention of the weapon is to leave infrastructure intact... I just don't think that was ever really achieved.
commieneko 16y ago
Let's see, the last war the US fought in order to gain land (or at least resources and infrastructure) was ... Iraq! If it weren't for the political and international consequences, then Neutron Bombs would have been very useful in that conflict. The fact that the US won (!) but still doesn't have the spoils says more about the competency of my country's leaders than it does their intentions.
- jordan0day 16y ago
  Well, people can (and certainly will) debate about the purposes of the Iraq war until they're blue in the face, but I don't think anyone would argue that the USA invaded Iraq because Americans want to move there. Perhaps I didn't state my point appropriately, but my argument was more directed at statements like the one by Kruschev that kwantam quoted.
  - commieneko 16y ago
    I understand your main point, I was just addressing the notion that a infrastructure preserving bomb would be of no tacticle use to the US. Strategically it IS of no use tovthe US, but that is another discussion... That aside, the point of the bomb was not simply to keep land livable for the victors to homestead, but to preserve the infrastructure during a conflict, including large numbers of the civil population not located directly on top of an unfortunately tactical spot. Gotta have someone left to work those still standing oil rigs...
- jerf 16y ago
  "fact that the US won (!) but still doesn't have the spoils says more..." Or, in other words, you have a mental model of the purposes of the war which predicts certain actions, and then, when that model is falsified by virtue of your predictions failing, it's not that your model is wrong, it's that the leaders who were successful up to that point (despite, quite likely, your model not permitting that either) suddenly becoming stupid. You've gone unfalsifiable. (I'm calling this out because it's a pretty popular position. I'm not claiming the stated ends are necessarily exactly the true ends, either, but, actions speak louder than words. Putative motivations need to explain what actually happened, not what could have happened in a parallel universe.)

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
According to the wikipedia entry: "Although neutron bombs are commonly believed to "leave the infrastructure intact", current designs have explosive yields in the kiloton range,[13] the detonation of which would cause heavy destruction through blast and heat effects." I agree the intention of the weapon is to leave infrastructure intact... I just don't think that was ever really achieved.

commieneko 16y ago

Let's see, the last war the US fought in order to gain land (or at least resources and infrastructure) was ... Iraq! If it weren't for the political and international consequences, then Neutron Bombs would have been very useful in that conflict. The fact that the US won (!) but still doesn't have the spoils says more about the competency of my country's leaders than it does their intentions.

jordan0day 16y ago
Well, people can (and certainly will) debate about the purposes of the Iraq war until they're blue in the face, but I don't think anyone would argue that the USA invaded Iraq because Americans want to move there. Perhaps I didn't state my point appropriately, but my argument was more directed at statements like the one by Kruschev that kwantam quoted.
- commieneko 16y ago
  I understand your main point, I was just addressing the notion that a infrastructure preserving bomb would be of no tacticle use to the US. Strategically it IS of no use tovthe US, but that is another discussion... That aside, the point of the bomb was not simply to keep land livable for the victors to homestead, but to preserve the infrastructure during a conflict, including large numbers of the civil population not located directly on top of an unfortunately tactical spot. Gotta have someone left to work those still standing oil rigs...
jerf 16y ago
"fact that the US won (!) but still doesn't have the spoils says more..." Or, in other words, you have a mental model of the purposes of the war which predicts certain actions, and then, when that model is falsified by virtue of your predictions failing, it's not that your model is wrong, it's that the leaders who were successful up to that point (despite, quite likely, your model not permitting that either) suddenly becoming stupid. You've gone unfalsifiable. (I'm calling this out because it's a pretty popular position. I'm not claiming the stated ends are necessarily exactly the true ends, either, but, actions speak louder than words. Putative motivations need to explain what actually happened, not what could have happened in a parallel universe.)