Talk:Neutron bomb

Don't free neutrons decay in about 15 minutes? Would that mean that (radiation aside) an area hit by a neutron bomb would be safe to re-enter by then? t

It refers to "salted bombs" being mentioned above, which are not, probably refering to something from the original article this used to be part of. The tactics section is confusing. Are Nbombs suposed to destroy buildings or not? Vroman 22:29 9 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Well, physicists who work for the U.S. Army say yes...

Sam Cohen, who invented the thing says no... at least in his book.

Neutrons are absorbed by hydrogen (water vapor), so maybe Cohen is right in Nevada, and the Army is right in Germany...

And I don't know the neutron absorption cross section of water vapor, so I can't even calculate it. Frustrating. User:Ray Van De Walker

This page says that "A radiation dose of 600 rads is normally considered lethal (it will kill at least half of those who are exposed to it)", whereas the RADIATION page says that a 450R (roentgen/hr) dose kills at least half, noone has been known to survive a 600R dose. Since these are old terms, it would be good to see the newer units used consistently across all radiation articles. The old/new terms and conversions are listed here: http://cnts.wpi.edu/RSH/Docs/Kondo93/sk1_4Dos.html

No mention of the anti-war protests and peace activism in the Neutron bomb article? I remember there were huge demonstrations in the 1980's to stop neutron bomb making.

I found a quite interesting article about the history of the neutron bomb at http://boingboing.net/profits_of_fear.html Sundae 10:38, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

explosion?

If a neutron bomb explodes above a building will the building be destroyed? I mean does the bomb only release energy radiation or does it also include a (relatively) small explosion? --130.161.31.25 20:49, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, there is an explosion that is likely large enough to destroy a building. -Lommer | ^talk 00:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

What is the typical explosive yield? I tried to find out, but couldn't find any concrete information. Maybe it should be added to the article as well? --GalFisk 18:04, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

It looks like this is most likely just a regular nuke with an enhanced initial pulse. A few layers of chromium are not going to stop a nuclear blast, while the bomb may be small it is most likely that the explosion may be on the magnitude of a few kilotones nuclear.

According to http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq1.html, yield is typically 1 to 1.1 kt.

Years ago, when I read up about this, I stumbled across a discussion that depicted even the Hiroshima weapon as a kind of ER. This was because of the fact that the lethal blast and heat radii of nuclear weapons grow (much) faster than the lethal radiation radius as the yield increases. That means that only below a certain yield (pinpointed in the area of around 15 kt as far as I remember), people can be close enough to die from initial radiation without being killed from blast and/or heat. (All this is of course very much simplified, there are a lot of factors that go into it.)--Cancun771 13:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

This article doesn't explain radiation well

This article needs to make very clear that all of the radiation effects being discussed, especially in the "Neutron bomb tactics" section, are referring to electromagnetic radiation, not to be confused with radioactive fallout. Here's one sentence in particular: "A radiation dose of 6 Gy is normally considered lethal." If someone doesn't know exactly what a Gray is they might assume it's a measure of radioactive fallout or toxicity, when in fact it is a measure of absorbed electromagnetic radiation. --Cyde Weys 22:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

And now I'm even confused. See this sentence: "This intense burst of high-energy neutrons is the principal destructive mechanism." What does that even mean? Are neutrons (the subatomic particle) being sent at high velocities away from the blast? Or is it electromagnetic radiation that's doing the killing? --Cyde Weys 22:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

This article need allot more information, it's pretty incomplete at the moment, for example it doesn't even state when the bomb was invented! - Gleake

Also, don't neutrons alone decay after 15 minutes, how long before an area is safe to enter after detonation? Is it 15 minutes or is there any lingering ionization radiation from its decay that can be considered harmful? WkpdTed 20:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I heard it explained like this:

In a bar:

• "What is the difference between the neutron bomb and the atom bomb?
• "Easy. When the atom bomb goes off, you are gone, your house is gone and your bike is gone. When the neutron bomb goes off, your house is there, your bike is there but you are gone."
• "Wait a minute! There must be another kind of bomb then."
• "What do you mean?"
• "Last weekend, I woke up on Saturday, I was there, the house was there, but the bike was gone!"

--Achim (talk) 03:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

References

Kurt Vonnegut's book, "Deadeye Dick" is narrated by someone whose hometown, Midland City, OH, USA is... cleaned out by a neutron bomb that goes off on a freeway.

• I converted the two referenced BBC articles to the modern referencing system using the Wikipedia cite templates. I'd like to do the same with the two books that were written by Dr. Cohen, but I don't know what information in the article is citing them. Could the person who added them let me know please? :-) -N. Harmon 13:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Can we please not discuss ways of killing people on the web? Doesn't anybody think terrorists or foreign enemies abroad could use this information to kill us?

-J —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.30.226.40 (talk) 13:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

--too right. Imagine if foreigners like say, the Americans got hold of this information. Shudder. Foreigners, how I wish they'd all go back to foreign and leave us alone.

Learned Elder

"The US stockpile is believed to have been largely dismantled by the elder Bush administration"

The word "elder" is mostly known among non-native speakers of english in relation with the infamous Protocols. Since Bush Sr. is not a sinister jew, a better wording is welcome. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.70.32.136 (talk) 11:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

No fallout

How could it be that this device leaves no radiactive fallout?

As far as I know all nuclear weapons (including fusion weapons) require a fission reaction to initiate it. If there is a fission reaction it means that there will be at least some fallout. This needs to be addressed. 24.222.119.44 16:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Bizarre claims

Some of the claims by the inventor are pretty wildly off base. He's also claimed that iraq had 50 baseball sized nukes they were going to use on the coalition forces, and that "red mercury" is the key to pure fusion weapons. Red mercury, in this instance being a hoax. Id say delete the claims unless they can be substantiated. Also, the tsar bomba, which was about as powerful a neutron source as is possible to build, (50 Mt, 97% fusion) was detonated 45 km from the test pilots. If neutron radiation was as powerful as claimed, they would have been killed instantly, and they were not.70.70.136.240 10:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletes

I just made a few deletes. The information was all tagged as "Citation needed", and it was further elaboration on something that is summed up very well in the technical section: "A popular misconception is that the neutron bomb "leaves the infrastructure intact" - in reality the blast from a neutron bomb would level almost any civilian structure inside the lethal radiation range." The Navy comment was included in this because it was just such a loose end, and it was also tagged as "Citation needed." 24.13.141.176 18:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Future Technology

It is implied in article that antimatter could be used to increase the bomb's effectiveness. Could someone please explain how you can store antimatter inside the bomb, as the bomb is made of matter itself?

antimatter, as long as it is electrically charged (usually antiprotons) can be contained within a magnetic bubble. it has been theorized that it could be used to catalyze a fusion reaction by firing it at a relatively heavy nucleus, which would be blown to pieces and set off fusion fuel. However, at current production rates, you'd have to wait till the heat death of the universe to make a quantity large enough to blow up a soap bubble.70.70.136.240 13:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Irak use

I deleted this utterly ridiculous claim. See my changes to the technical overview. If the US had used a neutron bomb in Baghdad, we would know about it. There would not have been a way to hide it, as well as the death and maiming of all the intelligence and news personnel of other nations that this would have brought about. Also (careful, sarcasm to follow) the US wouldn't have the problems there that they have now (because they would have flattened half the city in the process.)--Cancun771 10:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Possible use in Iraq

I do not think we should dismiss the idea that the US military may have used weapons that kill though radiation like a neutron bomb, depleted uranium which may be consider to have an effect like a dirty bomb is used a great deal, and nuclear weapons can be made with a great range of yields so wide spread devastation is not guaranteed form the detonation of a nuclear device. Some Sort Of Anarchist Nutter 17:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

All else aside, there is a very wide gap between "not dismissing" an unreferenced and completely unsubstanciated claim and "including such a claim into an encyclopedia".--Cancun771 18:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we can and should dismiss this. It's technically and logistically impossible, period. For starters, neutron bombs don't leave buildings intact. That's a complete and total myth, not true at all. Second, even the smallest nuclear bomb ever built would still be massive compared to any conventional weapon, and the use of even a tactical nuke would be clearly evident to any of the other countries with satellite tracking capabilities, not to mention to anyone within 10 miles of the blast.

And the claims about "depleted uranium" and its radiation content have been grossly exaggerated. 69.19.25.108 17:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do not restore this insane conspiracy theory again. The last US neutron bomb (the W70) was deactivated with the short-range Lance missile that carried it in the early 90s, and it would have physically destroyed the airport and much of the surrounding city. Our current lowest-yield deployable nuclear weapon (.3 kilotons) still would have completely destroyed the airport. Our smallest warhead ever was 10 tons yield, which would have resulted in massive, visible damage to the airport's infrastructure (but we haven't deployed such weapons for 20 years).

The addition of depleted uranium rounds to the discussion is ludicrous. Any danger of DU is in the inhalation of toxic, low-radiation particles, and would be a long-term health risk with nobody appearing burned.QuilaBird 18:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The section on possible use in Iraq is about a claim by the former commander of the Iraqi republican guard that a neutron weapon was used, it does not state that such a weapon was used, just that it has been alleged, and it is referenced. [1]

A neutron bomb detonated in the middle of a city or directly over the airport would certainly damage buildings but Baghdad International Airport is not in the middle of a city, it is on the vary edge and it may be possible that a neutron weapon detonated to the west of the airport could kill a significant proportion of the republican guard stationed there, without destroying the airport or causing significant amount of death in Baghdad itself [2]

We do not know if the US military has neutron bombs or not. It appears that all such weapons where decommissioned in the early 90s although it is not unknown of the military to keep weapons secret. I do not see how this is a conspiracy theory, no conspiracy is required, just that the military to behave as it normally does.

The point of the the depleted uranium is that it is an example of the US military using a weapon that release toxic, radioactive material into the environment that is suspected of causing significant long term heath problems, I put this in to make to point that there is no reason to think that if the US military would be reluctant to use a weapon such as a neutron bomb.

It may be posible for a small nuclear explosion to go undetected by other nations Thermobaric weapons resemble in apperance a small nuclear exposion and it can not be said with certanty that the airburst of a small nuclear weapon could be reliably detected as such through seismic methords.

Although it seems unlikely that it has happened it is worth noting the allegation, and this is not the same as saying that it is true. Some Sort Of Anarchist Nutter 23:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I read somewhere that the flash signatures of an atomic blast, which are one of the things detected by the now-decommissioned Vela satellites, are unique to that type of explosion. If any other nation had similar detection systems in place, they would presumably never confuse a thermobaric bomb (which might look to the naked eye like a small nuclear explosion) with an actual nuclear blast (as far as I know, thermobaric weapons don't flash in the millisecond scale of time the way nukes do). However, I have no idea if anyone does have such systems in place. 67.163.165.236 (talk) 02:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

That is still not a reason for turning an encyclopaedia into a platform for spreading rumours or insinuations. An encyclopaedia is supposed to be a place where you can look up facts.

As far as "small" nuclear explosions go, I'd like to ask you to please have a look at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khyZI3RK2lE and bear in mind that the detonations depicted there have a yield, not of 1 kt, not of 0.1 kt, but of a mere 22 and 18 metric tons of TNT (0.022 / 0.018 kt) Little Feller (nuclear tests).

As far as the Iraq thing goes, I shall request semi-protected status for Neutron bomb if it is included once more.--Cancun771 08:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Some Sort Of Anarchist Nutter, you do not understand how neutron bombs work. A neutron bomb still has a highly-destructive nuclear blast. This is enough to destroy any regular building within several hundred meters and damage anything out to over a kilometer. There is enough infrastructure and vegetation to the West of the airport that we would see a circle of destruction today. http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/imint/images/030403-d-6570c-014.jpg shows conventional damage, not nuclear.

Another problem is that the radiation doesn't go and then just stop when it burns people. It goes far, with lesser and lesser effects. So where were the thousands of people crowding the Baghdad hospitals due to radiation sickness in the weeks following the attack? There were none.

Aside from that, such use of neutron bombs is not even envisioned, and plain tactically stupid. For the military to "behave as it normally does" is to not use such a weapon where it is tactically dumb. The bombs meant to kill people in hardened, highly blast-resistant targets. That is their use. The airport is not such a target. I know this because I worked on these systems. I was trained to store them, to launch them and to calculate their effects.QuilaBird 15:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC) g —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.175.39 (talk) 17:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)