I 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

I 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.