4 ms·
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 t
by 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 agoI 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 agoExplosive 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 agoAlso, there were plenty of actual nuclear bombing victims to draw many kinds of statistics.
- Symmetry 16y agoFrom 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
- commieneko 16y agoThe Walking Wounded become the Walking But Still Capable Of Fighting And Mad As Hell With Nothing To Loose Anymore Wounded...
- varjag 16y agoThis is not that kind of recovery. You still would lose your teeth, hair, fingernails, vision, be extremely weak, get massive skin wounds pretty quick and gradually rot down in painful agony. You may last a week or two at hospital bed, but would be not much of a soldier. (moral weapon my ass)
- commieneko 16y agoI think you misunderstand my point. The range of effects is a gradient. At some point in the late '70s early '80s, when the controversy was fast and furious, I read an article that indicated that depending on the size of the bomb and the size of the target (with this type of weapon the target is usually a group of soldiers of some type) you end up with a gradient of results ranging from dead to something like what you describe to something like I describe to people who'll die months to years later to those statistically unaffected. The point of the article was that, from a tactical viewpoint, such a weapon could be as dangerous to the user as the target. Of course if your use case is simply to clear out a bunch of civilians from their land of milk and honey and move in, then, well sure. YMMV. Cows and bees weren't immune to neutrons that last time I checked. As to the morality of the weapon, well, let's just say that I'm glad that, for now, it doesn't seem to have many advocates.