• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Neutron Bomb Question

Should the US Resume Neutron Bomb Research?


  • Total voters
    20
Then what does the United States do? Does the U.S. honor it's defense commitments to Taiwan? Or, does the U.S. learn the lesson of Vietnam, and stay out of what is essentially a Chinese civil war?
Taiwan is still run by the descendants of Chank Ki Chek and they will not be ruled by a Chinese occupation. China knows that. Taking a hard line towards Taipei is standard procedure for Chinese because of what a ganster Chang was. I think as long as the Mainland talks tough and makes provocative jestures in the straights periodically that's enough.

So IMO we'll never find out. If war did break out, I think we'd do the same thing the Brits and French did to Poland and Czechoslovakia in WWII and just let it happen.
 
Uh...you are aware that the function of enhanced radiation weapons is to enhance the radiation output and minimize the blast, right?

But to produce the necessarily and sufficent level of radiation, one requires a significently large nuclear reaction, which comes with the downsize of massive damage. You are under the false impression that a neutron bomb leaves structures in tact.

It's like a massive EMP. By the time you do it, there's nothing that uses electricity left intact. So why bother?

I mean, what do you think the term "enhanced radiation weapon" means? You could try learning something about the topic, and nuclear weapons in general, since you're clearly extremely ignorant and are posting from emotional responses to cartoon images you've seen.

lol. That's the best you got? (btw, you've been reported for that) Nothing you've said explains why a neutron bomb would work and I've stated one of the many reasons it never got off the ground. One of which is one of the required elements decays rather quickly, between 10~20 years.

The best support you got in the thread was from Akyron who cited what appears to be a Kremlin scam to make money selling duds.

To produce the required amount of neutrons, you need to produce a nuclear explosion that is so large that everything you're trying to irradiate with the neutrons is destroyed in the nuclear blast rendering the weapon pointless.

Not to mention that such a weapon does not result in instant death. In fact we'd be facing legions of PRC troops who know exactly what is going to happen to them over the next week and will likely fight much harder.
 
Last edited:
Pretending the Chinese will continue to remain technological inferiors is pretty ignorant.

They will remain technological inferiors. Have you seen our defense budget? Not to mention the industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us against?

And you have ignored both Rathi and my point about logistics. Technological superiority does not mean you have the logistics to support a large army thousands of miles away with no support and friendly bases.

Especially considering their continued massive efforts at industrial espionage at all levels.

See above.
 
C'mon. If this was legit, why isn't there anything reputable on it?

Furthermore, do you have anything by Dr. Frank Barnaby himself rather than someone else saying he did it?

Not to mention trusting the Russians during the 1990s was generally a bad idea.
And your own article shows that the substance was a fraud which appeared to be nothing more than a get rich quick Kremlin scheme.

This whole thing looks like something the Russians concocted to make money. Physics based, it doesn't make much sense at all.

If the guy who invented the working model says it works then why wouldnt it?
 
If the guy who invented the working model says it works then why wouldnt it?

Because it doesn't? The material he called it does not act in the way he says it does. Furthermore, his entire argument on red mercury is based off secret interviews that the man who conducted the interviews has apparently nothing to say about them or even if they happened. And actual real experiences with red mercury have either been ploys to catch terrorists or make money off of fools. Nothing tangible has come up that the stuff actually exists. The whole thing reeks of a Kremlin get rich quick scam.
 
They will remain technological inferiors. Have you seen our defense budget?

I can agree with that. One of my best friends worked military avionics systems tech support. They are light years ahead of the next best thing.
Some of the things they can do right now are akin to magic by comparison.
Every year stupid amounts of money are being thrown in to multiply the effectiveness of old and new systems as well.
 
Because it doesn't? The material he called it does not act in the way he says it does. Furthermore, his entire argument on red mercury is based off secret interviews that the man who conducted the interviews has apparently nothing to say about them or even if they happened. And actual real experiences with red mercury have either been ploys to catch terrorists or make money off of fools. Nothing tangible has come up that the stuff actually exists. The whole thing reeks of a Kremlin get rich quick scam.

What happened to the 1000 bombs created in the 80's? The were supposedly not deployed in nato areas.
 
What happened to the 1000 bombs created in the 80's? The were supposedly not deployed in nato areas.

As I understand it, there were only a few actually made. And it's questionable if they left anything standing after the bomb went off to irradiate. Scarecrow is operating under the pop culture guise that a neutron bomb leaves structures in tact and only saturates the area with life killing radiation. This is simply untrue as the blast to produce the neutrons is still a nuclear explosion and does level many buildings and produce the heat and shock wave consistent with a nuclear explosion. IMO, I don't really see the point in current neutron technology and until we figure out a way to produce the sufficent level of neutrons without the nuclear explosion, it's counterproductive. We're better off just stop the invasion force in the water. Seems to me that would be easier. Or just not get into a war. That would be even easier, Ron Paul style.
 
As I understand it, there were only a few actually made. And it's questionable if they left anything standing after the bomb went off to irradiate. Scarecrow is operating under the pop culture guise that a neutron bomb leaves structures in tact and only saturates the area with life killing radiation. This is simply untrue as the blast to produce the neutrons is still a nuclear explosion and does level many buildings and produce the heat and shock wave consistent with a nuclear explosion. IMO, I don't really see the point in current neutron technology and until we figure out a way to produce the sufficent level of neutrons without the nuclear explosion, it's counterproductive. We're better off just stop the invasion force in the water. Seems to me that would be easier. Or just not get into a war. That would be even easier, Ron Paul style.

Compared to regular nuclear weapons, the explosive power of a neutron bomb is small, its effective use is its killing radiation.
Damage to infrastructure is minimal, as is residual radiation.
Used on an actual battlefield, it causes less risk to friendly troops who may need to occupy the area after the blast.
BUT, radiation poisoning deaths are considered inhumane compared to outright incineration by regular nuclear weapons.
Painful and slow death vs. instant bar-b-q, but the former leaves infrastructure mostly intact to be used by civilians (after their troops are buried)...
 
Compared to regular nuclear weapons, the explosive power of a neutron bomb is small, its effective use is its killing radiation.

Do we have actual test results on this?

Damage to infrastructure is minimal, as is residual radiation.

Actually as I understand it, it levels mostly everything that isn't up to military grade construction. The primary use of neutrons is to take out armor units which are protected from the blast but not from radiation. The idea isn't to save the infrastructure, but to eliminate massive Soviet tank columns without irradiating the land. So it does wipe out buildings as a side effect. Remember that we dismantled our neutrons after the Soviet Union well as the risk of massive Soviet tank invasions no longer existed, taking with it the purpose of a neutron bomb.

but the former leaves infrastructure mostly intact to be used by civilians (after their troops are buried)...

Where did you get this notion from? As I understand, the blast is pretty significant. Remember that the range of the weapon is pretty small. While the fringe of the blast is not heavily damaged, the ground zero is.
 
Do we have actual test results on this?



Actually as I understand it, it levels mostly everything that isn't up to military grade construction. The primary use of neutrons is to take out armor units which are protected from the blast but not from radiation. The idea isn't to save the infrastructure, but to eliminate massive Soviet tank columns without irradiating the land. So it does wipe out buildings as a side effect. Remember that we dismantled our neutrons after the Soviet Union well as the risk of massive Soviet tank invasions no longer existed, taking with it the purpose of a neutron bomb.



Where did you get this notion from? As I understand, the blast is pretty significant. Remember that the range of the weapon is pretty small. While the fringe of the blast is not heavily damaged, the ground zero is.

Read more than wikipedia. Yes, it is a nuclear blast, but you can detonate it high above a battlefield to minimize the blast. The range of the radiation is enhanced, one site I went to suggested that civilians could go to deep underground shelters, and a DEFENSIVE neutron bomb could be set off 10 km above their own city, killing attacking troops, even those inside tanks. Once the attack is over, civilians come out, but all the trees, grass, bugs, animals, birds, etc. will be dead....
 
On a side note, fast neutrons from a neutron bomb occur during the blast only, the same fast neutrons from a FUSION reactor provide what some call
"challenges" to engineers designing and building a fusion reactor. Years of particle damage from the fusion reaction will cause considerable damage to the infrastructure of the power plant....
Who wants to build a fusion power plant that will fall down after a few decades of operation?
So just in case anyone here thinks containing the reaction in a plasma field is the only hurdle to clear, don't hold your breath waiting for fusion to supply electricity to your toaster...
 
Actually as I understand it, it levels mostly everything that isn't up to military grade construction. The primary use of neutrons is to take out armor units which are protected from the blast but not from radiation. The idea isn't to save the infrastructure, but to eliminate massive Soviet tank columns without irradiating the land. So it does wipe out buildings as a side effect. Remember that we dismantled our neutrons after the Soviet Union well as the risk of massive Soviet tank invasions no longer existed, taking with it the purpose of a neutron bomb.

You understand it wrong.

A neutron bomb, technically referred to as an enhanced radiation weapon (ERW), is a type of tactical nuclear weapon formerly built mainly by the United States specifically to release a large portion of its energy as energetic neutron radiation. This contrasts with standard thermonuclear weapons, which are designed to capture this intense neutron radiation to increase its overall explosive yield. In terms of yield, ERWs typically produce about one-tenth that of most fission-type atomic weapons.[1] Even with their significantly lower explosive power, ERWs are still capable of much greater destruction than any conventional bomb. Meanwhile, relative to other nuclear weapons, damage is more focused on biological material than on material infrastructure (though extreme blast and heat effects are not eliminated—see Technical overview below).
 
They will remain technological inferiors.

Not with the Messiah in the White House.

His Holiness has already terminated critical SDI research. He's not going to implement ERW research.

Have you seen our defense budget?

Yes. Most of it's for ongoing conflict and maintenance and replacement, as well as wages and benefits. Very little is for R&D.

Not to mention the industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us against?

What about it? Our biggest problem is the industrial scale socialist/fascist complex The Messiah is forcing on us.

And you have ignored both Rathi and my point about logistics.

No, I didn't.

I explained the function of threat assessment.

Technological superiority does not mean you have the logistics to support a large army thousands of miles away with no support and friendly bases.

Yeah, no way did the United States invade Europe at Normandy, that's clearly a myth like the moon landings.
 
Read more than wikipedia. Yes, it is a nuclear blast, but you can detonate it high above a battlefield to minimize the blast.

Uh, that minimizes the radiation that actually has any effect. The greater the distance, especially when it comes to atmospheric particles that absorb the radiation, the less damage you do. You need to do close to the target. The optimal range is around 600 meters, which is about 1/3 of a mile which will still cause considerable damage to the target infrastructure. 10 km may not have any real impact whatsoever as that's 10,000 meters, well beyond the optimal range to remove armor.
 
But to produce the necessarily and sufficent level of radiation, one requires a significently large nuclear reaction, which comes with the downsize of massive damage. You are under the false impression that a neutron bomb leaves structures in tact.

I've never considered structures to be very tactful, actually.

But since the weapon is engineered to sacrifice blast for neutrons, and since most structures are relatively transparent to sub-atomic particles, most structures are, in fact, "tact".

It's like a massive EMP. By the time you do it, there's nothing that uses electricity left intact. So why bother?

To kill people.

lol. That's the best you got? (btw, you've been reported for that) Nothing you've said explains why a neutron bomb would work

Yes, I"ve been reported for discussing the ignorance of a poster on a topic she's ignorant about. So?

Meanwhile, I've made no effort to explain how any nuclear device works. It's not germane to the discussion.

Trust me, I know more than you.

Or don't trust me, I still know more.

and I've stated one of the many reasons it never got off the ground. One of which is one of the required elements decays rather quickly, between 10~20 years.

Yes the polonium cores would have to be replaced often.

So?

The best support you got in the thread was from Akyron who cited what appears to be a Kremlin scam to make money selling duds.

I don't base my arguments on the "support" I get from other posters, nor do I use that criteria to gage the worth of someone else's arguments. I'm not a cow chewing cud in the herd.

Why do you think such trivia is important?

To produce the required amount of neutrons, you need to produce a nuclear explosion that is so large that everything you're trying to irradiate with the neutrons is destroyed in the nuclear blast rendering the weapon pointless.

That's just ignorant.

Have you at least Richard Rhodes two excellent histories, The Making of the Atomic Bomb and Dark Sun? Have you taken a course in physics that includes topics such as critical mass and critical geometry, got any concept of the neutron reproductive cycle? Hmmm?

Don't lecture me on what you're ignorant of.

Not to mention that such a weapon does not result in instant death. In fact we'd be facing legions of PRC troops who know exactly what is going to happen to them over the next week and will likely fight much harder.



So? Usually soldiers whose intestines are sliding out their anus and who are leaking blood from their pores and their eyes aren't much good in battle. Who cares if they take a day or two to kick off? If we didn't want them dead, we wouldn't have nuked them, right?
 
You understand it wrong.

I take it you just found out about these weapons and are trying to quickly bring yourself up to speed?

Again, I fully understand. It is you who is in question. As pointed out, the optimal range (within that own document you cited) is 1/3 of a mile. Care to look at the damage that the atomic bombs did to things several miles away? Even at 1/10th of the power, the damage at the epicenter will be immense as well the damage caused by the shockwave. And the way you are arguing to use them requires a large number of them. That effectively means that large areas of the US will be completely leveled. Furthermore, the radiation doesn't kill immediately but takes days to a week with the period of health before death. The Chinese aren't stupid and know this. How are you planning to deal with thousands of tank crews who know they are dead but know they also have a week to wreck huge amounts of damage on us?

You also ignore the purpose of the weapons: to eliminate soviet tanks columns without having to irradiate the land. It was never about keeping the civilian structures in tact. It was about stopping armor.

You know, the whole messiah crap turns people off and makes you look stupid. Very little in your second post is worth even discussing as it's more of a hyperpartisan rant with little ties to reality.

And you did in fact ignore the logistics problem that both Rathi and I discussed. Nowhere did you even talk about it. In fact some of us made jokes about how China is even going to get here with sufficiently large numbers of assets.

And we didn't have technological superiority when it came to WWII. The Germans had jet technology before we did. German aircraft were arguebly more efficient. The Germans had better synthetic fuels than we did. The Germans had better artificial materials than we did. What did the Germans in was lack of mass production. One good example of how we sucked compared to them was the Sherman tank. Really. Terrible. But we still won. Having a giant based called England helped.
 
Uh, that minimizes the radiation that actually has any effect. The greater the distance, especially when it comes to atmospheric particles that absorb the radiation, the less damage you do. You need to do close to the target. The optimal range is around 600 meters, which is about 1/3 of a mile which will still cause considerable damage to the target infrastructure. 10 km may not have any real impact whatsoever as that's 10,000 meters, well beyond the optimal range to remove armor.

Then I guess maybe the generals should use their neutron weapons before the enemy gets to town, assuming what you said what true, which it isn't.
 
I've never considered structures to be very tactful, actually.

But since the weapon is engineered to sacrifice blast for neutrons, and since most structures are relatively transparent to sub-atomic particles, most structures are, in fact, "tact".

Apparently you don't understand the concept of how the weapon works. Tell me, how did they manage to produce a fission reaction that resulted in no large expansion of energy?

This outta be good.

To kill people.

Then why bother with neutron bombs given their long list of problems? Just go back to chemical weapons.

Yes, I"ve been reported for discussing the ignorance of a poster on a topic she's ignorant about. So?

I'm a girl? That's news to me. And you were reported for breaking the rules.

Meanwhile, I've made no effort to explain how any nuclear device works. It's not germane to the discussion.

Actually it is. The fundamental flaw in your argument is you assume they work how you think they work. That ain't the case.

Trust me, I know more than you.

Or don't trust me, I still know more.

Sure you do. Again, I'm not the one who thinks that the neutron bomb just merely releases neutrons without a corresponding shockwave and heat release. Do you think it's some kind of box that suddenly opens and sprinkles out neutrons like confetti without a bang? :confused: :rofl

Yes the polonium cores would have to be replaced often.

Actually it's Tritium. Not polonium.

Why do you think such trivia is important?

because it shows just how viable it is. Aka not.

That's just ignorant.

Have you at least Richard Rhodes two excellent histories, The Making of the Atomic Bomb and Dark Sun? Have you taken a course in physics that includes topics such as critical mass and critical geometry, got any concept of the neutron reproductive cycle? Hmmm?

Nope, but I seriously doubt you did either. So we're even.

Again, I'm not the one who thinks that there isn't any heat or shockwave that emits from a neutron bomb. That it just releases neutrons without any corresponding destruction. :rofl

Don't lecture me on what you're ignorant of.

See above.

So? Usually soldiers whose intestines are sliding out their anus and who are leaking blood from their pores and their eyes aren't much good in battle. Who cares if they take a day or two to kick off? If we didn't want them dead, we wouldn't have nuked them, right?

For someone who allegedly claims to know so much (yet shows so little in understanding) you clearly ignore how it takes sometimes days for symptoms to appear as well as the period of good health before death.

You know, if you're going to make a claim of expertise, actually show expertise. Don't just pull a TD "I have a degree, but show no understanding" kind of gag.
 
Then I guess maybe the generals should use their neutron weapons before the enemy gets to town, assuming what you said what true, which it isn't.

Why bother with a neutron when you can just torpedo the landing craft? Seems simpler to me. Or just not get into a war. Imagine that. Ron Paul suggested that the easiest way to avoid war is not to get into one. Huh. So simple!
 
I take it you just found out about these weapons and are trying to quickly bring yourself up to speed?

You take a lot of things. You should put them back if they don't belong to you.

Again, I fully understand.

Nope.

If you fully understood, you wouldn't have claimed that because more neutrons are needed that a bigger blast is needed.

That pretty much proves you don't know squat.

Even at 1/10th of the power, the damage at the epicenter will be immense as well the damage caused by the shockwave. And the way you are arguing to use them requires a large number of them. That effectively means that large areas of the US will be completely leveled.

...

You also ignore the purpose of the weapons: to eliminate soviet tanks columns without having to irradiate the land. It was never about keeping the civilian structures in tact. It was about stopping armor.

So, which is it, a land destroying supermegatonnage bomb as you claim in the first part, or an armor destroying non-irradiating weapon, as you claimed in the second?

Can you pick one argument and lose with that instead of picking two self-contradictory arguments and losing twice?

You know, the whole messiah crap turns people off

So?

and makes you look stupid.

But no where near as stupid as the people that voted for him.

Very little in your second post is worth even discussing as it's more of a hyperpartisan rant with little ties to reality.

Yes, I hear that's one of the re-programming phrases from the DNC for people who need to follow orders. "hyperpartisan". Cool. What I think is means is that the people who voted for Obama burned out their hyperdrives.

And you did in fact ignore the logistics problem that both Rathi and I discussed.

No.

I stated they weren't important.

If you're going to say I ignored it, you have to addres the fact the I didn't ignore it.

Nowhere did you even talk about it. In fact some of us made jokes about how China is even going to get here with sufficiently large numbers of assets.

Alaska. Ya ever hear of the place? Are you aware that it was an important strategic issue in WWII?

There's this country called "Mexico", too. For some reason I can't imagine why you people are pretending Mexico doesn't exist.

And we didn't have technological superiority when it came to WWII.

Depends on what you're discussing. The Japanese didn't advance technically.

The Germans had cool little toys, and their impact on the war was just as important as little kids playing with toys.

The Chinese are working on technical superiority, though. But y'all can ignore that if you wish.

But we still won. Having a giant based called England helped.

"We" won because "we" had factories the enemy couldn't reach and because, and only because, the funny little man in Berlin made the mistake of attacking the USSR before securing his western front first.

That's the only reason Hitler lost the war.
 
Why bother with a neutron when you can just torpedo the landing craft? Seems simpler to me. Or just not get into a war. Imagine that. Ron Paul suggested that the easiest way to avoid war is not to get into one. Huh. So simple!

Okay. So what you're saying is that WWII is a complete mystery to you.

Very well.
 
You take a lot of things. You should put them back if they don't belong to you.

I wonder if you have more insults than actual replies. I should tally.

Nope

If you fully understood, you wouldn't have claimed that because more neutrons are needed that a bigger blast is needed.

That pretty much proves you don't know squat.

Incorrect. What I said is that you need a sizable reaction to produce the amount of neutrons to kill the size of the force you were talking about. And given your senario, we'd need thousands of these things given their relatively small radius's and the fact that neutrons are readily absorbed by air thereby eliminating them as a weapon over anything more than a mile or so.

Don't know squat eh? I'll wait till I get to your part about WWII.

So, which is it, a land destroying supermegatonnage bomb as you claim in the first part, or an armor destroying non-irradiating weapon, as you claimed in the second?

Did I say supermegatonnage bomb? No. Neutron bombs have relatively small radius of effectiveness. No more than a mile, optimal 1/2 a mile. The destruction caused by the blast can extends for hundreds of meters. This ain't hard to figure out. The people you want to kill by radiation are in this radius. The people you want to kill by radiation are also in the blast radius of the bomb which will kill them by conventional nuclear explosions. Sure the people on the fringes will eventually get radiation sickness, but one is obviously going to deploy the weapon where the radiation does the most damage, hence in the greatest enemy density....yet the blast from the weapon will kill them anyways. Hence self defeating unless you're willing to saturate huge areas with thousands of weapons to ensure no one gets through...but that seems far too unfeasible for a rational mind.

Can you pick one argument and lose with that instead of picking two self-contradictory arguments and losing twice?

It would help if you either lied better to the point where people didn't notice you lying, or if you just didn't lie.

See above.


You don't mind people considering what you write to be drivel on the basis of those terms?

But no where near as stupid as the people that voted for him.

Perhaps, but Obama is a Bush clone which makes people who voted for either the same kind of idiot.

Yes, I hear that's one of the re-programming phrases from the DNC for people who need to follow orders. "hyperpartisan". Cool. What I think is means is that the people who voted for Obama burned out their hyperdrives.

Ah labeling. The sign of a poor debater. Can't actually deal with their argument? Assume they are from the opposing faction so you don't have to actually deal with their claims.

No.

I stated they weren't important.

Where?

Alaska. Ya ever hear of the place? Are you aware that it was an important strategic issue in WWII?

There's this country called "Mexico", too. For some reason I can't imagine why you people are pretending Mexico doesn't exist.

I'm close to peitioning for this thread to moved to the conspiracy section. Your argument that Mexico would aid China or that Mexico would be invaded is insane. Not to mention that taking Alaska is hard ****, not to mention resupplying from there to the lower 48.

If I didn't know better, I'd think you were joking about this whole thing.

The Japanese didn't advance technically.

Define "advance"

The Germans had cool little toys, and their impact on the war was just as important as little kids playing with toys.

It was more of an issue of quantity rather than quality. If they had the 262 early in the war, or if they had the number of Tiger that we had Shermans, we'd be in for a much harder war.

"We" won because "we" had factories the enemy couldn't reach and because, and only because, the funny little man in Berlin made the mistake of attacking the USSR before securing his western front first.

That's the only reason Hitler lost the war.

Only? There are plenty of reasons why the Axis lost.

The whole point is that technological superiority does not equate to logistical support that is vital to combat.
 
Okay. So what you're saying is that WWII is a complete mystery to you.

Very well.

Do you have anything other than insults?

Tell me, if WWII is such a mystery, why did the German U-Boats so successfully slow down the flow of men and material to Britain?

Furthermore, tell me, how is an army suppose to fight without men and material in the combat theater?

You have a lot of insults. And not much else.
 
Interesting you bring this up.

In the past China has threatened to send a Neutron bomb to Taiwain and send 200 Nuclear bombs to U.S.

They are bitter of Taiwains dissent...
You think China has 200 bombs they can send to the US.
 
Back
Top Bottom