Veovis

I thought neutrons underwent beta particle decay.

Would a neutron bomb make a beta decay chain reaction?

excreationist

So Neutron bombs destroy some buildings - but apparently the radiation soon disappears which is good for invaders who want to use the land....

Epictetus

This seems logical to me as well. In spite of my tongue-in-cheek title here, creating a bomb that doesn't leave as much residual radiation would seem to be more environmentally friendly, at least preserving the earth for future humans if any survived.

Now, the argument here appears to be that since they don't destroy buildings, they would more likely be used. That remains to be seen. Even if they were used, however, at least the habitat would remain unsullied.

A question though: How much of the radiation is gamma rays and how much is neutron radiation?

flintknapper

I read where Clinton ended the last of our (US) neutron work. Israel, however, is rumored to secretly have a load of them. One of the key ingredients, red mercury, was produced (among other places) at a plant in the old Soviet Union. When the Soviet Union ceased to be, supposedly a quantity of the finished red mercury disappeared into the black market.

Bumble Bee Tuna

I just was reading several sites about neutron bombs in an attempt to get a better idea of what they do. It seems they all agree that a neutron bomb is basically a regular nuclear weapon without the casing a regular nuke has to hold in nuetron radiation and increase blast radius. So the idea that "red mercury" is a specific ingredient for neutron bombs is simply not true- they use the same ingredients as any other nuclear weapon.

-B

Mr. Aardvark

That's a straw man argument since you are not repling to the argument he made. His position has nothing to do w/ which weapons are more horrendous. It has to do w/ which weapons are more likely to be used and FOR THAT REASON are less desireable.

Kat_Somm_Faen

Whatever on this load of crap. Same with the "precision bombing", "smart bombs" and "surgical strikes" - it is PR that brainwashes you into accepting war, conquest and slaughter. A living testament to the way the Western mind works. Not really against the war, it's just that its sooo darn ugly. Not really against Vietnam - just dont draft me. Not really against the war - as long as my dinner is not disturbed by dead and decomposing bodies on the TV. Sanitize and wrap it into a cloak of protection, mercy, democracy, humanity and it will be greeted, even cheered.

pariah

I was under the impression that CHINA was developing this, and that the USA had scrapped its program. I guess you could call Israel part of the west, but it's "stockpile" of these weapons is only a rumor. I mean, I'm not endorsing the West, but the stuff you described happens EVERYWHERE.

Kat_Somm_Faen

I mean to comment on the justification for the bomb. It's way to publicly defend it, finance itand sell it to the public. China is more reactive here than proactive. Read the attitude that rationalizes the original development of the bomb.. in the USA.

Loren Pechtel

But why call it a neutron bomb if it actually emitted gammas?

Oh, I agree, it's non-destruction is overrated. A lot of civilian stuff will be gone. But the more robust stuff will survive it. The roads, bridges, underground utilities etc will be basically intact.[/QUOTE]