View Poll Results: Should the US Resume Neutron Bomb Research?

Voters
37. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    25 67.57%
  • No

    12 32.43%
Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 93

Thread: Neutron Bomb Question

  1. #61
    Sage
    UtahBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    09-12-16 @ 08:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,513

    Re: Neutron Bomb Question

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    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....
    Oracle of Utah
    Truth rings hollow in empty heads.

  2. #62
    Sage
    UtahBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    09-12-16 @ 08:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,513

    Re: Neutron Bomb Question

    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...
    Oracle of Utah
    Truth rings hollow in empty heads.

  3. #63
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Neutron Bomb Question

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    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).

  4. #64
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Neutron Bomb Question

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    And you have ignored both Rathi and my point about logistics.
    No, I didn't.

    I explained the function of threat assessment.

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    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.

  5. #65
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 10:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Neutron Bomb Question

    Quote Originally Posted by UtahBill View Post
    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.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  6. #66
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Neutron Bomb Question

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    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".

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    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?

  7. #67
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 10:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Neutron Bomb Question

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    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.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  8. #68
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Neutron Bomb Question

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    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.

  9. #69
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 10:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Neutron Bomb Question

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    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?

    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.

    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.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  10. #70
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 10:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Neutron Bomb Question

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    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!
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •