4 ms·

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

by 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.
  - ertyjhgvfdc 16y ago
    Not necessarily, assuming the Russians actually wanted to conquer western europe - rather than end the world. The plan was that they sweep into Germany in overwelming tank force, your only option is to drop serious megatonnage on them to try and melt all the tanks. They assume you don't want to totally destroy western europe and kill 100million people. The neutron bomb allows you to (in theory) destroy large numbers of their tanks without totally devastating your allies. So you are more likely to use it - and it still keeps things tactical rather than strategic. They are not going to nuke New York because you used a tactical device on their army. The Russian response was to wrap hydrogen rich armour (aka diesel fuel) around their tank crew spaces which would provide enough sheilding that you are back to having to use silly amounts of megatonnage to achieve anything.
jemfinch 16y ago
My ethical equation is simple: "Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation." I surely hope that "the most moral weapon" is an ironic joke.

by ahi 16y ago

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.
- ertyjhgvfdc 16y ago
  Not necessarily, assuming the Russians actually wanted to conquer western europe - rather than end the world. The plan was that they sweep into Germany in overwelming tank force, your only option is to drop serious megatonnage on them to try and melt all the tanks. They assume you don't want to totally destroy western europe and kill 100million people. The neutron bomb allows you to (in theory) destroy large numbers of their tanks without totally devastating your allies. So you are more likely to use it - and it still keeps things tactical rather than strategic. They are not going to nuke New York because you used a tactical device on their army. The Russian response was to wrap hydrogen rich armour (aka diesel fuel) around their tank crew spaces which would provide enough sheilding that you are back to having to use silly amounts of megatonnage to achieve anything.

jemfinch 16y ago

My ethical equation is simple: "Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation." I surely hope that "the most moral weapon" is an ironic joke.